Heavy metal distribution and ecological risk in surface sediments of the Bohai Sea

Shilin Li; Jianlei Chen; Xuzhi Zhang; Jianshe Zhang; Yongjiang Xu; Yong Xu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326701

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 16, 2025
Decision Letter - Barathan Balaji Prasath, Editor PLOS ONE Dear Dr. xu, 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. Furthermore, the discussion on seasonal variations in heavy metal concentrations lacks depth regarding anthropogenic influences, and both the title and abstract need to be more concise and impactful. Overall, significant revisions are needed to improve clarity, relevance, and scientific contribution before resubmission. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 23 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, Barathan Balaji Prasath 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. 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund, CAFS (NO.2023TD53).” 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. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. 6. We note that Figure 1 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: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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].” 2. 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/ [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Title: Distribution Characteristics and Pollution Assessment of Heavy Metals in Surface Sediments in the Central Region of the Bohai Sea • Comment: The title is informative but could be more concise for clarity and impact. Consider removing redundant terms like "Distribution Characteristics and Pollution Assessment." • Recommendation: Revise to something like "Heavy Metal Distribution and Ecological Risk in Surface Sediments of the Bohai Sea." Abstract • Comment: The abstract is comprehensive but overly detailed, especially with numerical values. This can overwhelm the reader. • Recommendation: Summarize key findings concisely, focusing on trends, risks, and implications for environmental management. Introduction • Strengths: Provides a strong context, linking heavy metal pollution with ecological risks and human activities in the Bohai Sea. • Weaknesses: The introduction is slightly repetitive (e.g., overlapping details about river inputs and sediment roles). • Recommendation: Streamline by focusing on the knowledge gap and objectives. Move some background information to the discussion. Methods Study Area and Sample Collection • Comment: The study area description is detailed but lacks clear justification for choosing the central Bohai Sea. • Recommendation: Explicitly state why this region was selected and its importance compared to adjacent areas. Quality Assurance • Strengths: The QA/QC measures are thorough. • Recommendation: Include references for the detection methods (e.g., GB standards) for better credibility. Results Heavy Metal Content • Comment: Tables and figures are detailed but could be overwhelming due to excess numerical values. • Recommendation: Highlight critical trends (e.g., exceedance rates, highest/lowest concentrations) in the text rather than listing all values. Seasonal Variations • Comment: Seasonal trends are well-documented, but the discussion of influencing factors could be deeper. • Recommendation: Discuss how these variations align with known hydrodynamic and anthropogenic processes in the Bohai Sea. Discussion Seasonal Variation • Strengths: Comprehensive comparisons with past studies. • Weaknesses: Too many references to specific concentrations; the focus on ecological implications is limited. • Recommendation: Emphasize the ecological and management implications of seasonal changes instead of re-analyzing the numbers. Ecological Risks • Comment: The risk assessment is solid, but the methodology explanation could be simplified. • Recommendation: Reduce redundancy in explaining the risk indices and focus on the implications for sediment management. Long-term Trends • Strengths: Excellent temporal comparison with historical data. • Weaknesses: The explanation of interannual fluctuations could be more robust. • Recommendation: Link temporal trends to regional policy changes, industrial activities, or specific events like oil spills. Conclusion • Comment: The conclusion is repetitive and lacks actionable insights. • Recommendation: Summarize the key findings in one paragraph and add specific recommendations for policymakers and future research. Tables and Figures • Comment: Figures are informative but could benefit from improved design (e.g., larger fonts, consistent color schemes). • Recommendation: Ensure all figures are publication-ready with clear legends and high resolution. References • Comment: The references are recent and relevant but lack diversity in geographical scope. • Recommendation: Include more global studies on heavy metal pollution for broader context. Reviewer #2: Please see the attached comments. The work seems good however, the sampling being very old and does not justify the knowledge gap. Already a good data is available from the study area. I recommend the authors can make a review instead using existing and their own data to present status of Bohai sea. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewed Manuscript_PONE-D-25-01587.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS review 25-01587.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326701.r001
Revision 1
10 May 2025 Author Response Response to Comments from Editors and Reviewers Dear Editor/Reviewer: We greatly acknowledge the editor and reviewer for their constructive comments and advices. Thank you for your patience and these valuable comments. It is our honor to get your help to improve our manuscript entitled “Distribution characteristics and pollution assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments in the central region of the bohai sea” with the manuscript number PONE-D-25-01587. We have revised the manuscript according to every single comment which made by the editor and reviewers. We check the editor and reviewers’ comments repeatedly and closely to ensure each comment is addressed. The following is our reply to the comments in red color. Moreover, the changes have been highlighted in red color in a marked copy of the revised manuscript (in submitted documents). 1.Please clarify which server the basemap tiles for Figure 1 were procured from. Response: Thank you for your comments. Regarding the basemap tiles used in Figure 1 created with Golden Software Surfer, please be informed that: Server Source: The basemap was specifically obtained through the OpenStreetMap (OSM) tile server integrated within Golden Software Surfer's interface. License Compliance: OSM data is licensed under the Open Database License (ODbL) which is compatible with CC BY 4.0 for map tiles (as per OSM's guidance on map tile reuse: https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/). Open Database License (ODbL):https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/ Direct Links: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright Basemap Source: https://www.openstreetmap.org/export#map=7/38.941/120.103&layers=T Tile Usage Policy: https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/ We confirm that the basemap usage complies with both OSM's attribution requirements and PLOS ONE's CC BY 4.0 license policy. 2. Please clarify what program(s) were used to create this new version, and whether any external images or assets were used to create it. Response: Thank you for your comments.The study area and sampling stations were created using Golden Software Surfer and are shown in Figure 1.No external images or assets were used. 3. Please state what role the funders took in the study. Response:Thank you for your comments. Funding: This study was supported by the Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund, CAFS (NO.2023TD53).The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 4. Data availability statement. Response:Thank you for your comments. We have provided the mean values, standard deviations, and values used to construct the graphs reported in the studies in the Supporting Information.All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. 5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. Response:Thank you for your comments. We have revised Figure 1. Please refer to the manuscript for detailed modifications. Response to Reviewer #1: 1.Title:Distribution Characteristics and Pollution Assessment of Heavy Metals in Surface Sediments in the Central Region of the Bohai Sea Comment: The title is informative but could be more concise for clarity and impact. Consider removing redundant terms like "Distribution Characteristics and Pollution Assessment." Recommendation: Revise to something like "Heavy Metal Distribution and Ecological Risk in Surface Sediments of the Bohai Sea." Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have revised the title to ”Heavy Metal Distribution and Ecological Risk in Surface Sediments of the Bohai Sea”. Please see the manuscript for detailed modification content. (lines 1-2) 2.Abstract Comment: The abstract is comprehensive but overly detailed, especially with numerical values. This can overwhelm the reader. Recommendation: Summarize key findings concisely, focusing on trends, risks, and implications for environmental management. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestions. We have revised the abstract to focus on key findings, trends, risks and impacts on the environmental management and ensure a more concise presentation. The revisions are marked in red below. The detailed revisions have been highlighted in the manuscript (lines 21-48). 3. Introduction Strengths: Provides a strong context, linking heavy metal pollution with ecological risks and human activities in the Bohai Sea. Weaknesses: The introduction is slightly repetitive (e.g., overlapping details about river inputs and sediment roles). Recommendation: Streamline by focusing on the knowledge gap and objectives. Move some background information to the discussion. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have revised the manuscript by (1) adding content to address knowledge gaps and research objectives (highlighted in lines 115-140), (2) deleting redundant discussions on river input, and (3) relocating relevant background information to the Discussion section (lines 356-364). All modifications are marked for your review. 4.Methods Study Area and Sample Collection Comment: The study area description is detailed but lacks clear justification for choosing the central Bohai Sea. Recommendation: Explicitly state why this region was selected and its importance compared to adjacent areas. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have supplemented the rationale for selecting the central Bohai Rim as the study area in the Introduction (lines 128-140), explicitly stating its unique environmental significance compared to adjacent regions and the scientific justification for this geographical focus. The revised content has been highlighted for your review. 5.Quality Assurance Strengths: The QA/QC measures are thorough. Recommendation: Include references for the detection methods (e.g., GB standards) for better credibility. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have revised the manuscript by (1) incorporating references to GB 17378-2007 and methodological specifications in Section 2.2 Sample Collection and Processing (lines 170-172), and (2) expanding the QA/QC measures with detailed citations of GBW07314 (lines 180-185). All revisions are highlighted in the text for your review. 6.Results Heavy Metal Content Comment: Tables and figures are detailed but could be overwhelming due to excess numerical values. Recommendation: Highlight critical trends (e.g., exceedance rates, highest/lowest concentrations) in the text rather than listing all values. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have revised the manuscript by incorporating a comparative chart (Fig 2) in Section 3 to visualize the minimum, maximum and average values of the six heavy metals, thereby emphasizing key trends. The original Table 3 has been streamlined accordingly, with all modifications marked in the text (lines 246-247) for your reference. 7.Seasonal Variations Comment: Seasonal trends are well-documented, but the discussion of influencing factors could be deeper. Recommendation: Discuss how these variations align with known hydrodynamic and anthropogenic processes in the Bohai Sea. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have strengthened Section 4.1 (Seasonal Variation of Heavy Metals Concentrations in the Central Bohai Sea) by (1) adding seasonal trend analysis linked to hydrodynamic and anthropogenic drivers, (2) conducting multi-factor influence evaluations, and (3) integrating these revisions into the manuscript (lines 356-397), all marked for your review. 8.Discussion Seasonal Variation Strengths: Comprehensive comparisons with past studies. Weaknesses: Too many references to specific concentrations; the focus on ecological implications is limited. Recommendation: Emphasize the ecological and management implications of seasonal changes instead of re-analyzing the numbers. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have enhanced the Discussion section (4.1 Seasonal Changes in Heavy Metal Concentrations in the Central Bohai Sea) by incorporating ecological and management implications strategies related to seasonal variations, with these critical additions highlighted in the manuscript (lines 398-416) for your review. 9.Ecological Risks Comment: The risk assessment is solid, but the methodology explanation could be simplified. Recommendation: Reduce redundancy in explaining the risk indices and focus on the implications for sediment management. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have simplified the explanation of the risk index and added implications for sediment management.The modification content is marked as follows in red font. Please see the manuscript for detailed modification content(lines 419-443). 10.Long-term Trends Strengths: Excellent temporal comparison with historical data. Weaknesses: The explanation of interannual fluctuations could be more robust. Recommendation: Link temporal trends to regional policy changes, industrial activities, or specific events like oil spills. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have enhanced the explanation of interannual fluctuations by linking the temporal trends to regional policy changes, industrial activities, and specific events, such as oil spills.The modification content is marked as follows in red font. Please see the manuscript for detailed modification content(lines 459-501). 11.Conclusion Comment: The conclusion is repetitive and lacks actionable insights. Recommendation: Summarize the key findings in one paragraph and add specific recommendations for policymakers and future research. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have revised the conclusion to summarize the key findings in a more concise manner and included specific recommendations for policymakers and future research. The modification content is marked as follows in red font. Please see the manuscript for detailed modification content(lines 502-524). 12.Tables and Figures Comment: Figures are informative but could benefit from improved design (e.g., larger fonts, consistent color schemes). Recommendation: Ensure all figures are publication-ready with clear legends and high resolution. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have modified all the figures, including making the font larger, the color scheme consistent, and the legend clearer, to ensure that the figures can be published and have high resolution. The modified figures are as follows. Please see the manuscript for detailed changes. 13 References Comment: The references are recent and relevant but lack diversity in geographical scope. Recommendation: Include more global studies on heavy metal pollution for broader context. Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have added relevant content on global heavy metal pollution research in the introduction, including (Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, Red Sea-Gulf of Aqaba coast and the southern Gulf of Mexico)The modification content is marked as follows in red font.Please see the manuscript for detailed modification content.(lines 115-127).And adjusted have the format of references according to the journal standards. Response to Reviewer #2: 1.The Manuscript assesses surface sediment contamination in Bohai sea region. The authors has put in good efforts for such extensive sampling. Response: Thank you for your affirmation of our work. 2. As the area is highly researched already by several researchers and hence, the present work do not present a novel or knowledge gap fulfilment. Line 105-108: There is already much research done on heavy metal conc. In Bohai sea. Already many of them included in literature. Response: Thank you for your comments. Yes, this study does not fill the knowledge gap. We have revised the manuscript. The existing literature focuses on extensive research on the area around Bohai Sea. However, we found only a few studies on the central area of Bohai Sea. Since the 2011 oil spill caused pollution in Bohai Sea, we hope that by comparing the environmental changes ten years ago with the present, our findings aim to inform future environmental management strategies in this critical marine ecosystem. 3. The sediment samples collection is already a decade old. Also, is the present analysis using AAS is done presently or during 2013 which needs to be made clear. Response: Thank you for your comments. The sediment sample collection and the Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) analysis were both conducted in 2013. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript to avoid any confusion. The modification content is marked as follows in red font (2.2 Sample collection and processing). Please see the article for detailed modification content (lines172). 4. Line 125 – capitalize Response: Thank you for your careful review and for pointing out the formatting issue. We have capitalized the letters in line 125.Please see the article for detailed modification content (lines150). We appreciate your attention to detail and will ensure that the manuscript adheres to the proper formatting standards. 5. As the overall research is carried out on the base of 2013 year sampling. I think the data is a more than a decade old and to put forward it in present scenario will have less importance in present context. Response: Thank you for your comments on the timeliness of the data. We understand your concerns, especially about the rapid changes that may have occurred in the environment over the past decade. Since pollution in the central Bohai Rim is a long-term problem, we used data from 2013 because recent studies Li et al. (2020) and Wei et al.(2022) examined data from the central Bohai Rim. The comparison provides an understanding of environmental changes in the central Bohai Sea after the 2011 oil spill that caused pollution in the Bohai Rim region. The patterns observed in 2013 provide a basis for understanding broader trends and the historical context of pollution. e.g: [1] Li LQ, Hu H, Lv XL, Liu Q. Contents and ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in surface sediments of the Central Bohai Sea and the Northern Yellow Sea. Trans Oceanol Limnol. 2020;1: 84-92. [2] Wei Y, Ding D, Qu K, Sun J, Cui Z. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metal pollutants and total petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments of the Bohai Sea, China. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;184: 114218. 6. Moreover, already good quantity of work is already been undertaken in the study area hence the study does not fill the knowledge gap. Response: Thank you for your comments. Yes, this study does not fill the knowledge gap. We have revised the manuscript. Since the 2011 oil spill caused pollution in Bohai Sea, we hope that by comparing the environmental changes ten years ago with the present, it may have an impact on future environmental management strategies. 7.As already mentioned in introduction and discussion section, the study area is a highly polluted area, which the result presented the moderate to low quantity of pollution. Response: Thank you for your comments. This difference is due to the different research scopes. In the introduction and discussion, the comparative research scope is the heavily polluted area of the Bohai oil spill accident, while this study is the central area of the Bohai Sea. After the Penglai 19-3 oil spill accident, the Chinese government quickly took pollution blocking measures to shorten the polluted area as much as possible, so the sampling points failed to fully cover the heavily polluted area, so the pollution level was medium to low. 8.The seasonal changes in the heavy metal concentration are not properly justifiable. Specially, the study mentions a lot anthropogenic activities in the bay region. Although, the sources and activities are not well discussed. Response: Thank you for your comments. We have supplemented the discussion of human activities in the Bohai Sea Rim region in the revised manuscript 4.1 (Seasonal Variation of Heavy Metal Concentrations in the Central Bohai Sea) and provided a more detailed explanation of the potential sources of heavy metal pollution, including in https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326701.r002
Decision Letter - Barathan Balaji Prasath, Editor Heavy Metal Distribution and Ecological Risk in Surface Sediments of the Bohai Sea PONE-D-25-01587R1 Dear Dr. Yong Xu, 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, Barathan Balaji Prasath Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: No Comments. I have fully satisfied with current format and no conflict of interest statement with this paper. Reviewer #2: It seems that most of the reviewers comments are well addressed and justified. The MS can be accepted with final editorial decision. ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Nikunj B. Gajera Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326701.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Barathan Balaji Prasath, Editor PONE-D-25-01587R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. xu, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Barathan Balaji Prasath Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326701.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .