Dear Dr. Li,

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.

The authors need to consider all the suggestions of the reviewers such as including relevant references, providing details/justification of the boundary conditions and grid chosen, explanation for the variation in efficiencies with height in the revised paper.

All the equations and symbols should also be checked

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 13 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.

• 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,

Muhammad Shakaib, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 Ningxia Transportation Department Science and Technology Project (20200173);Ningxia key research and development plan project support(2021BEG02017).  

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.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

The research described in this paper was financially supported by Youth Science Foundation Project’ Research on

Failure Mechanism and Evaluation Method of Sand Control Measures for Railway Machinery in Sandy Area’ (12302511) ;

Ningxia Transportation Department Science and Technology Project (20200173) ; Central guide local science and

technology development funds (22ZY1QA005).

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

Ningxia Transportation Department Science and Technology Project (20200173);Ningxia key research and development plan project support(2021BEG02017) 

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. We note that Figures 1, 2, and 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2, and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Figures should not be in both the manuscript, and as separate files.

7. 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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Referee-Report: PONE-D-24-35646

Title: Evaluation of protection benefit of HDPE sand barrier fence with different heights on desert Highway

The paper focuses on a CFD numerical simulation model to investigate the wind and sand blocking effects of fences with varying heights and constant porosity. The authors utilize ANSYS FLUENT software to implement a two-phase Euler model, employing the SIMPLEC (Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equations – Consistent) algorithm. The simulation results demonstrate that fence barriers with different heights have a significant impact on reducing wind-driven sand transport. These findings are particularly relevant for protecting a section of the Wuma Expressway, located in the Tengger Desert.

The paper presents numerical results on an interesting topic related to wind-driven sand transport. The main objective is to demonstrate how varying fence heights can improve protection or reduce sand transport. While the simulation box used in their model is well described, there is a lack of clarity regarding the choice of boundary conditions for the fluid flow, particularly the decision to use a symmetric boundary at the top of the simulation box. The simulation methods themselves also require more detailed explanation to make the approach fully understandable to readers. Although the authors present results confirming that fences can be effective in reducing sand transport, they do not engage in a deeper scientific exploration of the results. The paper mainly describes the findings from the simulations without critically analyzing or discussing them. For example, there is no discussion on optimization strategies for determining the most effective fence height for protection. Is there a specific rationale for choosing certain fence heights, or does height selection not significantly impact performance? This aspect needs further exploration to provide practical insights for those interested in applying these findings to real-world scenarios.

The manuscript presents a variety of simulations and results that support the authors' conclusions; however, it lacks the necessary discussion to emphasize and critically analyze the findings. Due to these concerns, the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form. There are several points that require clarification, which I outline below.

1) There are some abbreviations that must be translate (UAV) and (HDPE).

2) The simulation grid description is very confused. They should make clear for reader. The images are good, but the description is not.

3) Did the authors test the mesh quality, or was the mesh chosen primarily based on simulation time considerations? Additionally, there appears to be some confusion between the terms "grid" and "cell." Clarification and consistency in the usage of these terms are needed.

4) There is insufficient description of the conditions under which the fluid and particles interact. While this may be implicit in the CFD method, it is important to clearly define these conditions. How do the authors define sand accumulation, particularly if the model used is based on a two-phase approach?

5) The Authors comment that “Desert wind-sand flow is generally in a saturated state”, but they do not explain what it means or use references about the subject.

6) Is there a specific reason for using a symmetric boundary condition at the top? To be honest, I did not fully understand the sentence: “the rest surface adopts the symmetrical boundary conditions” (SYMMETRY). Could the authors clarify this point?

7) I am confused about the coordinate’s description in eq. (5) (input velocity profile).

8) Could the authors provide a 3D view of the velocity field? I am particularly interested in observing the velocity field near the fence borders.

9) In the section on horizontal wind speed, it is unclear whether the velocity is composed of two components along the z and x directions or if it is only a function of x. Additionally, the results presented in this section show comparative values, but it is not clear whether these values are related to the velocity field without fences or if they are being compared to the input profile.

10) The velocity field profiles (contour lines) shown in Figure 7 appear almost identical, with only slight differences. How, then, could the calculated efficiency values differ so significantly, given that they are derived from the velocity profile? Is there an explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

11) Table 2 raises the question of whether there are any correlations between the efficiency of the first/second barrier and the second/third barrier. For which fence height is the decrease in efficiency more pronounced? Additionally, does this depend on the distance from the bottom surface?

12) The authors should provide a more thorough analysis of the data presented in the tables. For instance, the data in Table 3 indicates that accumulation reaches saturation as the fence height increases. However, no discussion of these results is included in the paper.

13) Several sentences need to be revised for clarity, as they may confuse readers.

14) The authors should review all figure captions to enhance their descriptions, as captions are essential for understanding the figures.

15) We know that fence efficiency is measure in terms of transport. I think the Authors should include a conection with sand transport in terms of the shear stress treshold for the sand movment. The shear treshold depen on the grain size. There are some discussions how to introduce this connection on the following papers:

Sauermann, G., Andrade Jr., J.S., Maia, L.P., Costa, U.M.S., Araújo, A.D., Herrmann, H.J., 2003. Wind velocity and sand transport on a barchan dune. Geomorphology 54,

245–255.

Guan, D.X., Zhong, Y., Jin, C.J., Wang, A.Z., Wu, J.B., Shi, T.T., Zhu, T.Y., 2009. Variation in wind speed and surface shear stress from open floor to porous parallel windbreaks: a wind tunnel study. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D15106.

Lima, I. A., Parteli, E. J., Shao, Y., Andrade, J. S., Herrmann, H. J., & Araújo, A. D. (2020). CFD simulation of the wind field over a terrain with sand fences: Critical spacing for the wind shear velocity. Aeolian Research, 43, 100574.

Cornelis, W.M., Gabriels, D., 2005. Optimal windbreak design for wind-erosion control. J.Arid Environ. 61, 315–332.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a numerical simulation study of the effect of wind barriers on sand transport using Computational Fluid Dynamics. IT focuses on the effect of fences designed to reduce sandblasting in an area known as Wuma Expressway, which passes through the hinterland of the Tengger Desert from east to southwest. This type of study is very important for desertification, climate and agricultural sciences, and we need more models, experiments and numerical simulations to better elucidate the physics of soil erosion and prevention.

However, in the present form, I cannot recommend publication of this manuscript in Plos ONE for the reasons mentioned below. If the authors satisfactorily revise their manuscript by taking all points below into account though, then I would be glad to participate as reviewer again in a future review round of this paper.

--------------

COMMENT 1)

--------------

The introduction and conclusions read like a report for the Chinese government. The text mentions a lot of numbers for sand density, porosity, wind speed, etc., specifically about the model for the study area, without a clear message about what is being learned from the simulation results. Moreover, are there any insights from the simulation that could be maybe useful for combating desertification or soil erosion in other areas of the world? Overall, this paper reads like a governmental report, rather than a scientific paper.

--------------

COMMENT 2)

--------------

One more piece of evidence that this has been a governmental report, which has been translated to English and then submitted to Plos ONE: The bibliography contains ONLY publications from Chinese authors. However, there is so much groundbreaking literature on CFD modeling of wind-blown sand transport, completely ignored by the authors. For example, Smyth (2016) wrote an outstanding review on CFD applied to this area, see here:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2016.07.003  (Smyth, 2016)

Moreover, Lima et al. (2017) and Lima et al. (2020) published similar numerical simulations to the ones presented here, thereby deriving models for fence efficiency as a function of porosity, height and spacing, see the links to the two very important papers here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45148  (Lima et al., 2017)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2020.100574   (Lima et al., 2020)

All these papers should be definitely incorporated into the bibliography, and the authors should diversify a little more the literature in general to include more authors from other countries but China.

--------------

COMMENT 3)

--------------

The paper overall is not well written. A thorough revision of the language is definitely required. Moreover, the model description has various flaws. I skipped some parts of it since I will only give any further consideration to this paper if the authors resubmit a version that successfully addresses the major comments raised here, which are enough to preclude publication in PLOS ONE. However, for example, equation (5) is described incorrectly. The height above the ground is "z" and not "y". Moreover, "y_0" is not the wind speed at surface, it is rather the roughness, which is the height at which the wind velocity is zero. This kind of error shows one thing: The authors did not perform a careful job. They just submitted this manuscript to see what happens. And it astounds me that the journal chosen by the authors is PLOS ONE. This is a strong interdisciplinary journal, to which we should submit papers of high quality only.

Therefore, my final recommendation is rejection. But I am opting for "Major Revision" in the electronic system to signalize to the editorial office that I would agree to review an improved version along the lines above. The authors must give the paper to someone who can help them check the correctness of the equations and plots, because even the simplest equation (Eq. (5)) was presented incorrectly.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

The authors are suggested to carefully consider the previous comments of reviewer 2 and incorporate in the revised paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 19 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.

• 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,

Muhammad Shakaib, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #2: The authors ignored my comment #2, so that the cited literature remains essentially an acknolwedgment to Chinese authors working in the field. Moreover, the reply letter does not indicate any action to address my comment #1.

I thus stopped at comment #2 and concluded that the authors decided to neglect my comments.

I am recommending alternative reviewers to the journal.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

The authors are suggested to make following changes in the paper:

1. Include relevant papers in the revised manuscript. 

• Aerodynamic shape optimization of barriers for windblown sand mitigation using CFD analysis (by Horvat et al. in Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, paper 104058)
• Wind tunnel experiment and CFD analysis of sand erosion/deposition due to wind around an obstacle (by Tominaga et al. in Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.182, 2018, pp. 262-271)

1. Grid independence test results should be added in the paper
2. The boundary conditions are not clear. The surfaces which are symmetric should be clearly shown on Figure and mentioned in the relevant section of the paper.
3. The properties of HDPE are not given in the paper.
4. The contours in Fig. 5 are similar and the effect of fence height is not noticed. Similarly, the contours of sand thickness distribution in Fig. 8 for four cases do not differ. Better Figures are required to explain the effect of fence height.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 21 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.

• 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,

Muhammad Shakaib, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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.

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

The authors are suggested to make following changes in the paper(i) The title of section 2.2.3 should include terms 'fluid flow' or 'fluid dynamics' such as 'Governing equations for fluid flow ' (instead of Mechanical equation). Similarly 'Control equation', section 2.2.4, should be renamed e.g. Turbulence modeling.  (ii) HDPE should be deleted from the title as its properties (density, tensile strength etc.) are not used in simulations.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 07 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.

• 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 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,

Muhammad Shakaib, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

[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

Evaluation of protection benefit of sand barrier fence with different heights on desert highway

PONE-D-24-35646R4

Dear Dr. Li,

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,

Muhammad Shakaib, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: