Dear Dr. Zhang,

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 16 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,

Saidul Islam, Ph.D.

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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41861015, U2202207) and the Natural Science Foundation of the Department of Education of Inner Mongolia (NJZY22285). We thank LetPub (www.letpub.com.cn) for its linguistic assistance durin

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:

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41861015, U2202207) and the Natural Science Foundation of the Department of Education of Inner Mongolia (NJZY22285). The funders had no role in the 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 Figures 1, 7, 9, S1 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, 7, 9, S1 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/

5. 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: 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: No

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 manuscript studies the characteristics, origin and environmental risks of PAHs contamination in glacial snowmelt and river water in the Meili Snow Mountains in the southeast of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau known as the "Third Pole of the World." PAHs contamination levels are relatively high and are dominated by low molecular weight compounds and a variety of combustion mixing sources, which can cause moderate and higher ecological risks and potential carcinogenic threats. The results of the study provide insight into the environmental fate of organic pollutants under the dual influence of human activities and climate change. The main findings of the review are as follows:

1, the manuscript digest and the body of many clearly stated PAHs is POPs. In general, POPs are used for Persistent Organic Pollutants controlled by the Stockholm Convention, while PAHs are not included in the POPs list and it is recommended that the relevant statement be modified.

2. The state-of-the-art of POPs in glacial meltwater is not well described in the introduction. In particular, the current research status of POPs and PAHs in glacial meltwater in the Tibetan plateau is not thorough. (see Lines 71-73).

3, Lines 74-86: Does Meili Snow Mountain research exist? Only the geographical background is presented, there is no analysis of the current status of the relevant research.

Line 181:RQ PMCs typing error should be changed to RQ MPCs.

Lines 228-230: Is there any citation to suppose that tourism has a strong impact?

4、Section 4.1 Potential source identification� Flu/( Flu + Pyr) ratio and other parameters were used to source appointment, but these ratios are the rule of thumb, its use alone has some limitations, different studies in the judgment criteria also some differences, such as someone’s recommend that Flu/ (Flu + Pyr) > 0.5 indicates diesel combustion, and there are also studies proposed that Flu/ (Flu + Pyr) > 0.5 indicates biomass combustion (e.g. forest fires), coal combustion, waste incineration and other high-temperature combustion products characteristics. Therefore, when it is necessary to analyze accurate sources (e.g., differentiation of fuel types, degree of combustion) , usually using multiple molecular ratios in practice (e.g., IP/(IP + BghiP) , BaA/(BaA + Chry) , BaP/BghiP, etc.) The results are more accurate as a result of the comprehensive evaluation.

5. Conclusion: Some concrete research results are mainly described, more scattered, lack of condensation into some viewpoints and laws.

Reviewer #2: There are some issues in the manuscript which should be improved�

1.Although“few investigations have been conducted on POPs in the Meili Snow Mountains”in the introduction�the research progress of other glacial areas on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau can be added.

2.References for sample processing and analysis can be added.

3.The description of the layout of the sampling points should be added.

4.Check the format of the units throughout the text, such as ng L−1 and ng·L−1

5.The significance test of PAHs concentration differences should be added. It's too arbitrary to draw conclusions only through mean comparison.

6.Some sentences are lengthy�which can be simplified.

7.This study sampled only once and was unable to reflect seasonal changes.

8.The collection and analysis of environmental samples are lacking.

9.The description of the PAHs in the discussion can be included in the introduction.

10.Specific management suggestions should be provided according to the research.

**********

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. Zhang,

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Minor revision. Please ensure you address all reviewer comments, especially those related to statistical criteria.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 30 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,

Dario Rafael Olicón-Hernández

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 

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:

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript has largely addressed the reviewers' comments, though some modifications still require further supplementation.

1.The revised manuscript states that there has been no reported research on POPs in the Meili Snow Mountains to date. However, the authors have already published a research paper on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Meili Snow Mountains this year. For details, please refer to: Zhang, Huawei, et al. "Glacial Waters Under Threat: Risk Assessment and Source Identification of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Meili Snow Mountains, Southeastern Tibetan Plateau." Toxics 13.5 (2025): 391. It is recommended to amend the relevant statements and accurately summarize the current research status.

2.Some issues were responded to but have not been fully addressed. I understand that certain facts indeed cannot be changed; however, since the questions were raised, appropriate solutions should still be provided. For example:

The claim that PAHs are POPs.

The authors insist on using average concentrations for comparative analysis without providing statistical test results, which is inappropriate.

The reviewers pointed out the lack of description regarding the collection and analysis of environmental samples, which should be supplemented. However, the authors responded by stating that the number of available samples is limited, which seems unrelated to the question raised.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

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

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: No

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: The revised manuscript has largely addressed the reviewers' comments, though some modifications still require further supplementation.

1.The revised manuscript states that there has been no reported research on POPs in the Meili Snow Mountains to date. However, the authors have already published a research paper on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the Meili Snow Mountains this year. For details, please refer to: Zhang, Huawei, et al. "Glacial Waters Under Threat: Risk Assessment and Source Identification of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Meili Snow Mountains, Southeastern Tibetan Plateau." Toxics 13.5 (2025): 391. It is recommended to amend the relevant statements and accurately summarize the current research status.

2.Some issues were responded to but have not been fully addressed. I understand that certain facts indeed cannot be changed; however, since the questions were raised, appropriate solutions should still be provided. For example:

The claim that PAHs are POPs.

The authors insist on using average concentrations for comparative analysis without providing statistical test results, which is inappropriate.

The reviewers pointed out the lack of description regarding the collection and analysis of environmental samples, which should be supplemented. However, the authors responded by stating that the number of available samples is limited, which seems unrelated to the question raised.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Unveiling Hidden Threats: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Pollution in the Glacial Waters of the Meili Snow Mountains in the Southeastern Tibetan Plateau

PONE-D-25-15764R2

Dear Dr. <!--StartFragment-->Huawei Zhang<!--EndFragment-->,

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,

Dario Rafael Olicón-Hernández

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All the suggestions were addressed by the authors, and the work can be published in its current form

Reviewers' comments: