PONE-D-24-38663The Influence of Canal Boat Emissions on the Particle Size Distribution of PAHs in the Ambient Air of Bangkok

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pongpiachan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

Significant modification. Kindly respond to the three reviewers, particularly the first one, regarding the work's significant findings and applications of currently available techniques and algorithms.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Worradorn Phairuang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

NIDA research center

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:  It is my pleasure to review this manuscript entitled 'The Influence of Canal Boat Emissions on the Particle Size Distribution of PAHs in the Ambient Air of Bangkok '. This study conducted a assesment the concentrations of PAHs across six particle size fractions in the atmosphere at a rooftop sampling site in Bangkok, Thailand. The PCA was used to identify the potential sources of PAHs.

Whether the sampling method and chemical analysis of for PAHs, or the application of PCA in the article, they are all repeated applications of existing methods and algorithms, lacking exploration and innovationThis manuscript is suggested to be granted a rejection primarily based on the grounds that there are no significant results at the moment from this research, neither from theoretical nor technical. Following are some detailed comments and suggestions which may improve the quality of this work.

1.As stated in above summary, this manuscript lacks the depth. The research carried out stays on the surface. There is no summary of the progress and shortcomings of existing research in the 'Introduction' Section.

2.Lack of comparative experiments for sampling analysis and chemical analysis of PAHs.

3.Lack of comparative experiments in health risk assessment, the main conclusions are based on common knowledge and lack novelty.

4.The conclusion should be described in detail, and the current research results have little significance for guiding the improvement of urban air quality.

Reviewer #2:  Comments:

Dear editor of “PLOS ONE”

Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript titled “The Influence of Canal Boat Emissions on the Particle Size Distribution of PAHs in the Ambient Air of Bangkok”. The manuscript was carefully studied. There are minor comments which present below.

1. The title of the article does not reflect the purpose of the manuscript well, it should be corrected

2. In the abstract, the purpose of the article is not well stated.

3. Keywords are not chosen correctly and need to be revised.

4. The manuscript is grammatically flawed.

5. The map of the sampling location and the boat channel crossing should also be specified.

6. What is the distance between Air Quality Observatory Site (NAQOS) and the boat channel crossing?

7. The order of the sampling method, especially the headings selected in this section, is disproportionate and needs to be corrected.

8. The duration of sampling, weather conditions (wind, precipitation and temperature) have not been stated

9. PAHs are ubiquitous compounds, so they may be present even in clean air. Considering the height and distance of the sampler from their passage, how can these PAHs be related to the boat channel?

10. The volume of results and discussion is large, it is better to write more briefly.

11. There are a lot of tables, the ones that don't need to be deleted or replaced with diagrams

Reviewer #3:  In this manuscript, the authors have reported the concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) across six particle size fractions on the Navamindradhiraj Building, Bangkok, Thailand. The highest concentration was observed in the PM2.1-3.3 fraction (24.3±15.0 pg m-3) and the lowest in the PM7.0 and above fraction (5.71±2.41 pg m-3). The primary sources of particulate PAHs were the light-duty gasoline and gasohol vehicles. The Lifetime Lung Cancer Risk (LLCR) were below threshold value, consequently, the likelihood of individuals developing lung cancer solely from PAH exposure in the studied area is considered negligible. Overall, the performance of the materials looks good and would be of interest to the general reader of the related field. However, there are some void spaces in the method. Additionally, polishing the writing of some parts of the manuscript is required. Therefore, I recommend accepting this manuscript for further publication with a few significant changes. My specific comments or suggestions are given below.

In the Materials and Methods, the sampling site was described, however the sampling date, time, duration and no of samples collected were not mentioned. There were long theoretical discussions on Cascade Impactor. It is a common instrument used in air pollution measurement hence, a brief explanation is enough to describe it.

The study depends upon the concentration of PAHs collected in different size ranges. Therefore, graphical data will be more effective for data visualization. “The arithmetic mean concentrations of ∑▒PAH12 collected” is the collection of either six different sizes PM or individuals not clear. Percentage contribution will be easily understood if the total concentration is also mentioned in addition to the individual concentration.

Unmanaged discussions on pages 13 and 14 create confusion and are difficult to understand. I suggest supplying graphical data and the total concentration of PAHs to illustrate the contribution of individual PM concentrations.

Discussion on pages 14 to 16 with the definite title is irrelevant to this study because this study collected data from only one station with size variation only because this study did not include the spatial, time and seasonal variations.

The conclusion described the importance of canal boats rather than the conclusive remarks of the research. Although the research output suggested that the primary sources of particulate PAHs were the light-duty gasoline and gasohol vehicles, the pollution level is still within the acceptable level and the study did not consider the interference of vehicle emissions on canal boat emissions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Mandira Pradhananga Adhikari

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

PONE-D-24-38663R1

Size-Segregated Analysis of PAHs in Urban Air: Source Apportionment and Health Risk Assessment in an Urban Canal-Adjacent Environment

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pongpiachan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 02 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dipesh Rupakheti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed my comments raised in a previous round of review and feel that this manuscript is now acceptable. The manuscript technically sound with appropriate statistical analysis. The authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available. The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

Please see the attachment for additional suggestions.

Reviewer #4: The authors addressed most of the comments from the reviewers. I have a few remarks on PMF source apportionment results and data summary.

Lines 665-706. The source profiles from PMF modeling are clear. However, the authors did not present the contribution of individual sources to total PAHs. One reference is recommended.

https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15030346

The authors could read the reference and organize the data as those in the recommended reference.

Another issue is Figure 2. I recommend the authors plot a figure of size distributions of LMW PAHs (a), MMW PAHs (b), and HMW PAHs (c), as shown in the recommended reference.

Reviewer #5: Here are pointwise comments for improving the given article:

1. Provide a clearer introduction that outlines the significance of studying PAH concentrations in urban environments. This will help contextualize the research for readers unfamiliar with the topic.

2. Methodology

- Expand on the methodology used for sampling and analysis of PAHs. Include specifics on the sampling duration, frequency, and any analytical techniques employed (e.g., mass spectrometry) to enhance reproducibility.

3.Elaborate on the statistical methods applied to analyze the data, including any software used, and how the results were interpreted. This will strengthen the credibility of the findings.

4. Add comparisons of the findings with similar studies in other urban areas to contextualize the PAH concentrations reported in Bangkok, which can highlight the uniqueness or commonality of the findings.

5. Discuss the methodologies utilized for identifying the sources of PAHs, such as receptor modeling or statistical source apportionment. Detailed source attribution can enhance understanding of pollution dynamics.

6. Provide further explanation of the LLCR values, including how these were calculated and their implications. Consider including a brief discussion on the thresholds that determine health risks.

7. Engage in a more in-depth discussion on the implications of the findings. Discuss potential public health policies or interventions that could mitigate PAH exposure based on the identified sources.

8. Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing key findings and suggesting practical recommendations for policymakers or urban planners based on the study results.

9. Acknowledge any limitations in the study's design or scope, such as potential unmeasured sources of PAHs or limitations in spatial coverage.

10. References: There are fewer numbers of new references or recent references especially related to urban PAHS /health risk similar studies. Therefore, for current study should be given a strong impact if you can cite the following reference.

- The health risk and source assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the soil of industrial cities in India

- Distribution, risk assessment, and source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using positive matrix factorization (PMF) in urban soils of East India

- Temporal variability of atmospheric particulate-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) over central east India: sources and carcinogenic risk assessment

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Size-Segregated Analysis of PAHs in Urban Air: Source Apportionment and Health Risk Assessment in an Urban Canal-Adjacent Environment

PONE-D-24-38663R2

Dear Dr. Pongpiachan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dipesh Rupakheti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: Accept in the present form. Now present format is good in format and standard. manuscript PONE-D-24-38663R2, entitled "Size-Segregated Analysis of PAHs in Urban Air: Source Apportionment and Health Risk Assessment in an Urban Canal-Adjacent Environment"

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********