Comprehensive analysis of effect of high-acid-value waste cooking oil on adhesion between aged asphalt and aggregates

Zhiyu Wang; Qiang Pei; Kunjie Li; Zhonghui Wang; Xiaodong Huo; Yongwei Wang; Yanfang Li; Shaoqi Kong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0332738

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 6, 2025
31 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Jiaolong Ren, Editor Dear Dr. wang, 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 Sep 14 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, Jiaolong Ren 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. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The authors acknowledge support from the Luliang City High-Level Scientific and Technological Talent Introduction Key Research and Development Project (2022RC17), Luliang City high-tech field key research and development projects (2024GX06, 2024GX07), Shanxi Province Science Foundation for Youths Award (202303021222253), and the Innovative Development Plan Project of Shanxi Transportation Research Institute Group Co., Ltd. (22-JKCF-07). “ Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The authors acknowledge support from the Luliang City High-Level Scientific and Technological Talent Introduction Key Research and Development Project (2022RC17), Luliang City high-tech field key research and development projects (2024GX06, 2024GX07), Shanxi Province Science Foundation for Youths Award (202303021222253), and the Innovative Development Plan Project of Shanxi Transportation Research Institute Group Co., Ltd. (22-JKCF-07). “ 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 author(s) received no specific funding for this work” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [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: 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 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: The paper presents valuable findings, but language, figure quality, simulation clarity, and discussion depth must be improved before the manuscript is suitable for publication. Lines 17–19: "Although the affects of aging on asphalt interface adhesive depend on mineral category..." → Replace “affects” with “effects”. Lines 94–96: “...which is identical to the lightweight ingredients in virgin asphalt...” change the sentence for better understanding Lines 156, 165, 428, 579: Multiple instances of awkward phrasing and grammar errors exist throughout the manuscript. Lines 125–136: The literature gap is not very well defined, as the similar work is already done by e.g., Yan et al. 2022; Gao et al. 2019 Figures 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 (Lines ~345–600): The y-axis labels on several graphs (e.g., “Bond strength”, “Work of adhesion”) are too small or unclear. Also, error bars are missing, which are important for interpreting variability across replicates (especially in pull-off strength tests – Fig. 3). Revise figures for better visual clarity and inclusion of standard deviations. Lines 315–320 and 607–609: The units for adhesion work and debonding (mJ/m²) should be consistently formatted. Also, in equations (1)–(6), symbols should be clearly defined immediately after the equation, not included in the paragraphs. Equations (1)–(6), Lines ~370–590: The formatting of equations in text is inconsistent (e.g., spacing issues, improper symbols). Lines 525–540 and 566–575: The points about WCO improving asphaltene dispersion and microstructure are repeated. Lines 660–675: Conclusions are well-structured but could benefit from quantitative mention of key improvements (e.g., % increase in bond strength or adhesion energy after WCO addition). Reviewer #2: The article is sound enough for publishing as it expose gap of knowledge and follows good methodology to attain the objectives. Comments: 1. The introduction must be edited to focus on the problem statement, objectives and research gap. Avoid the general and repeated speech. 2. Some figures are presented with low quality missing axis. Double check and fix. 3. The discussions must be deepened. The results must be justified, verified, and validated. 4. The English must be edited. ****** 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: Yes: Prof. Dr. Ahmed Mancy Mosa ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332738.r001
Revision 1
25 Aug 2025 Author Response 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 Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the editor. Based on the editor's advice, the article has been revised accordingly. 2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the editor. Based on the editor's advice, the article has been revised accordingly. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the editor. Based on the editor's advice, the article has been revised accordingly. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The authors acknowledge support from the Luliang City High-Level Scientific and Technological Talent Introduction Key Research and Development Project (2022RC17), Luliang City high-tech field key research and development projects (2024GX06, 2024GX07), Shanxi Province Science Foundation for Youths Award (202303021222253), and the Innovative Development Plan Project of Shanxi Transportation Research Institute Group Co., Ltd. (22-JKCF-07). “ 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. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the editor. Based on the editor's advice, the article has been revised accordingly. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The authors acknowledge support from the Luliang City High-Level Scientific and Technological Talent Introduction Key Research and Development Project (2022RC17), Luliang City high-tech field key research and development projects (2024GX06, 2024GX07), Shanxi Province Science Foundation for Youths Award (202303021222253), and the Innovative Development Plan Project of Shanxi Transportation Research Institute Group Co., Ltd. (22-JKCF-07). “ 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 author(s) received no specific funding for this work” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the editor. Based on the editor's advice, the article has been revised accordingly. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [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: Yes 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: Yes 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: The paper presents valuable findings, but language, figure quality, simulation clarity, and discussion depth must be improved before the manuscript is suitable for publication. Lines 17–19: "Although the affects of aging on asphalt interface adhesive depend on mineral category..." → Replace “affects” with “effects”. Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, it has been corrected in lines 17 to 19 of the paper. Lines 94–96: “...which is identical to the lightweight ingredients in virgin asphalt...” change the sentence for better understanding Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, it has been corrected in lines 94 to 96 of the paper. Lines 156, 165, 428, 579: Multiple instances of awkward phrasing and grammar errors exist throughout the manuscript. Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, it has been corrected in the paper. Lines 125–136: The literature gap is not very well defined, as the similar work is already done by e.g., Yan et al. 2022; Gao et al. 2019 Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, it has been summarize again in the paper. Figures 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 (Lines ~345–600): The y-axis labels on several graphs (e.g., “Bond strength”, “Work of adhesion”) are too small or unclear. Also, error bars are missing, which are important for interpreting variability across replicates (especially in pull-off strength tests – Fig. 3). Revise figures for better visual clarity and inclusion of standard deviations. Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, figures 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 has been revised in the paper. Lines 315–320 and 607–609: The units for adhesion work and debonding (mJ/m²) should be consistently formatted. Also, in equations (1)–(6), symbols should be clearly defined immediately after the equation, not included in the paragraphs. Equations (1)–(6), Lines ~370–590: The formatting of equations in text is inconsistent (e.g., spacing issues, improper symbols). Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, figures 8, 10 and equations (1)–(6) has been revised in the paper. Lines 525–540 and 566–575: The points about WCO improving asphaltene dispersion and microstructure are repeated. Thank you very much for the valuable comments provided by the reviewers. Based on their suggestions, we have made corresponding revisions in the paper.d Lines 660–675: Conclusions are well-structured but could benefit from quantitative mention of key improvements (e.g., % increase in bond strength or adhesion energy after WCO addition). Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, relevant conclusions has been revised in the paper. Reviewer #2: The article is sound enough for publishing as it expose gap of knowledge and follows good methodology to attain the objectives. Comments: 1. The introduction must be edited to focus on the problem statement, objectives and research gap. Avoid the general and repeated speech. Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, it has been corrected in the paper. 2. Some figures are pr esented with low quality missing axis. Double check and fix. Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, it has been corrected in the paper. 3. The discussions must be deepened. The results must be justified, verified, and validated. Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, it has been corrected in the paper. 4. The English must be edited. Thank you to the reviewers for the valuable suggestions. According to the reviewer's opinion, it has been corrected in the paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332738.r002
4 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Jiaolong Ren, Editor Comprehensive analysis of effect of high-acid-value waste cooking oil on adhesion between aged asphalt and aggregates PONE-D-25-36592R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Jiaolong Ren Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewer #1: Reviewer #2: Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed 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 Response) Reviewer #2: The authors considered all comments and made the suitable corrections. Good luck. …………………………………………………… ****** 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: Yes: Prof.Dr. Ahmed Mancy Mosa ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332738.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jiaolong Ren, Editor PONE-D-25-36592R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. wang, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Jiaolong Ren Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332738.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 .