PONE-D-25-03422Study on the Releasing Regularity of Asphalt Fume and Its Suppression TechnologyPLOS 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. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 13 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,

Mayank Sukhija

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. 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.

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

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Doctoral Innovation Project of Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Manuscript.docx Northeast Forestry University (2572022AW55) for financial support

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:

the Doctoral Innovation Project of Northeast Forestry University (2572022AW55) received by Guang Yang

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

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

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 and 17 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments :

Kindly incorporate the comments suggested by the Reviewers. They are recommending aggressive revision before further consideration.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: This manuscript is a study of the release patterns and inhibition techniques for asphalt fumes. Smoke-suppressing and deodorizing asphalt was prepared by adding SBS, MOS and deodorizer to the matrix asphalt. The smoke inhibition and deodorization of matrix asphalt by smoke inhibitor and deodorizer were also analyzed by mass method, odor intensity grading method, FTIR, SEM and TG-MS. However, the manuscript has more detailed problems, and the specific modifications are as follows:

1. There are some problems with the structure and logic of the introduction section. The introduction of the fume collection device seems rather abrupt and does not form an effective connection with the contextual content. In addition, several concluding statements lacked the support of corresponding literature citations.

2. The manuscript is inaccurate in its description of Table I. Is SBS a modifier or a bitumen? What is the purpose of mentioning different matrix bitumens in Table I? Were these asphalts set up as controls? The tensile speed for the ductility test should be 50 mm/min. In addition, the specifications for the modifier MOS and deodorizer need to be listed.

3. Is the use of PTFE filter membranes supported by the results of other studies?

4. The description of the test program in Table 2 is very vague, please redraw the table.

5. In “2.2methods for asphalt fume”, please add the description of TG test and DSC test methods.

6. In subsection 3.1, the author's description of Figures 6 and 7 is wrong. The release of asphalt fume tends to increase with the increase of heating time and heating temperature.

7. In the summary of the release pattern of asphalt smoke, the release of asphalt smoke is greater when the temperature is 180°C and the time is 5 h. Why were the test conditions finally determined at a heating temperature of 160°C and a time of 3 h?

8. In Fig. 12, it is suggested to add obvious labeling to point out the location where the MOS whiskers are exposed.

9. In both the FTIR and TG tests, the tests were carried out on five types of bitumen. Therefore, it is suggested that the SEM test, DSC test and TG-MS test should also be carried out on five kinds of bitumen to ensure the comprehensiveness of the test.

10. The road performance of modified asphalt is mentioned several times in the manuscript, but the results of the effect of various modifiers on the road performance of asphalt are not reflected in the whole text, so it is suggested that the authors add.

11. “SEM” is spelled incorrectly several times in the manuscript, and it is recommended that the authors check the whole text.

12. In subsection 3.7, it is mentioned that SSD asphalt has low temperature sensitivity, while in conclusion 4, it is mentioned that SSD has excellent temperature sensitivity, which is contradictory.

13. The evaluation of the deodorizing effect of SSD asphalt in this manuscript relies only on the Odor Intensity Rating Method (OIRM), but the results of this test are not listed in the text and need to be supplemented. However, the results of this test are not listed in the text, which should be added. Moreover, the odor intensity rating method mainly comes from the personal feeling of each volunteer, which is subjective. The TG-MS test can qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the substances in asphalt fumes, and it is suggested that the authors add more test data to evaluate the deodorizing effect of deodorizers.

14. The result from Fig. 9 is that the smoke inhibition rate reaches 53% when the MOS doping is 3.0% and SBS doping is 4.0%, which is not in line with the description of the authors.

15. The dosage of deodorant was determined without specific experimental basis, and it is recommended that the authors add the effect of different dosages on asphalt performance to arrive at the optimum dosage of deodorant.

16. The writing of the conclusion is too long, it is recommended that the author streamline the conclusion and refine the core points.

Reviewer #2: This work contributes a valuable study on the performance of styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), magnesium oxysulfate (MOS) whisker, and deodorant in inhibition of the asphalt emissions, which enables better analysis of fume suppression effect of additives in asphalt. And multiple technologies were used in this study, including TG, DSC, TG-MS, SEM, and FTIR. According to the current manuscript, there are some points the authors need to consider for improving the manuscript, some detailed comments are shown as below:

1. It seems like the aerosol portion of asphalt fumes is neglected in the proposed asphalt fume collection device, yet it takes up a major portion. Why didn’t the authors consider the aerosol portion in this step?

2. What are the differences between the asphalt fume collection devices of the authors and others?

3. According to Figure 6, the mass of asphalt fumes decreased with stirring time. Did the authors consider the effect of modification process and pre-heating process on the inhibition of asphalt fumes?

4. The authors developed an asphalt fume collection device, how did the authors ensure the effect of this device?

5. How did the authors control the air flow rate?

**********

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

**********

[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.

PONE-D-25-03422R1Study on the Releasing Regularity of Asphalt Fume and Its Suppression TechnologyPLOS 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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 26 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,

Mayank Sukhija

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please revise the manuscript as per the reviewers comments. Kindly imrpove the quality of the manuscript in terms of typos and grammar.

[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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 manuscript is revised according to my comments, and the revision is satisfactory and suitable for the publication.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the release characteristics of asphalt fumes and their suppression techniques were analyzed. Modified asphalt with smoke suppression and deodorization functions were prepared by adding SBS, MOS and deodorant to the base asphalt. In addition, the asphalt under the action of smoke suppressants and deodorants was systematically studied by various methods, and its performance in smoke suppression and deodorization was discussed in detail. Generally, there are no major issues with the manuscript, but it can be improved in the following aspects.

1. The sources are considered old in terms of history and not the scientific content. It is better to add some modern sources.

2. Please increase the resolution of the images installed in the search.

3. The conclusion is a little long and it fails to highlight the actual contribution of this study completely. It is recommended to rewrite it.

Reviewer #4: The authors have answered the reviewers' comments. The structure and methodology of the paper are both reasonable. However, some revisions are suggested based on the following comments.

1. The English grammar needs to be carefully checked and improved throughout the manuscript, e.g. by a professional English language editor. The current version is difficult for readers to comprehend.

2. In the test section, the flowchart may be included to clearly demonstrate the research scheme of the paper.

3. It is recommended to use the same range for the vertical axis of all figures in Figure 18 ~ Figure 20.

4. To guarantee the accuracy of smoke testing, does the base asphalt utilized in the preparation of modified asphalt share the same heating history?

5. Kindly ensure that the paper adheres to the appropriate format and line - spacing requirements. Have the line numbers been accurately assigned?

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

Study on the Releasing Regularity of Asphalt Fume and Its Suppression Technology

PONE-D-25-03422R2

Dear Dr. 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,

Mayank Sukhija

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: