Research on the evolution mechanism of main control factors for coalbed methane extraction

Ting Xia; Enyu Xu; Xijian Li; Shoukun Chen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338859

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 2, 2025
31 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Veer Singh, Editor Dear Dr. Li, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. 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, Veer Singh, 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: ” This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52164015, 52364009), Guizhou Province Science and Technology Achievement Transformation Joint Fund Project [Qian Ke He Cheng Guo LH (2025) Key 002], Guizhou Provincial Basic Research Program (Natural Science) (No. Qian Ke He Ji Chu - ZK [2024] Yi Ban 098).” Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52164015, 52364009), Guizhou Province Science and Technology Achievement Transformation Joint Fund Project [Qian Ke He Cheng Guo LH (2025) Key 002], Guizhou Provincial Basic Research Program (Natural Science) (No. Qian Ke He Ji Chu - ZK [2024] Yi Ban 098).” 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. 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52164015, 52364009), Guizhou Province Science and Technology Achievement Transformation Joint Fund Project [Qian Ke He Cheng Guo LH (2025) Key 002], Guizhou Provincial Basic Research Program (Natural Science) (No. Qian Ke He Ji Chu - ZK [2024] Yi Ban 098).” We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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 supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52164015, 52364009), Guizhou Province Science and Technology Achievement Transformation Joint Fund Project [Qian Ke He Cheng Guo LH (2025) Key 002], Guizhou Provincial Basic Research Program (Natural Science) (No. Qian Ke He Ji Chu - ZK [2024] Yi Ban 098).” 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. 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: 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: 1. You state that the DR equation had the best fit for the gas adsorption curve (R 2 =0.9986), followed by Langmuir and BET. While the statistical fit is strong, could you elaborate on the physical implications of the DR equation being the best fit, particularly in the context of your finding regarding micropore development and filling in anthracite? How does this align with the theoretical underpinnings of the DR model for microporous materials? 2. Conclusion (2) states that the single-pore model is suitable for fitting gas adsorption but not desorption, and that the bidisperse (dual-pore) model is more suitable for gas migration at the coal seam scale. Given that the study used coal powder, how do you justify the direct extrapolation of these findings to the "coal seam scale"? What considerations or further research would be needed to bridge this gap effectively? 3. You propose that gas adsorption causes coal matrix expansion and deformation, leading to a "blocking effect" where pore throats become smaller than gas molecules, resulting in less desorbed gas than adsorbed gas (Conclusion 3). Do you have any direct experimental evidence (e.g., pore size distribution analysis before and after adsorption, or volumetric changes) to support this hypothesis, beyond the observed difference in adsorption and desorption amounts? If not, could this be explored in future work? 4). The introduction mentions "Recent studies have shown that the coal matrix has nano-pores with a large specific surface area and pore volume, providing conditions for the occurrence of gas molecules." Did your study include any characterization of the coal powder's pore structure (e.g., using N2 adsorption/desorption, mercury intrusion porosimetry, or SAXS/WAXS) to confirm the presence and characteristics of these nano-pores and micropores, which you suggest are responsible for the observed fitting results of the DR equation? If so, please present those data. Reviewer #2: The authors have conducted a novel study on the extraction of coalbed methane, including an adsorption equilibrium study at various pressure points and a desorption analysis. The manuscript is well written and concise. ****** 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: THUMPATI PRASANTH Reviewer #2: Yes: RAHUL RANJAN ******** [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: Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338859.r001
Revision 1
8 Oct 2025 Author Response Reply to the review comments Reviewer #1: 1. You state that the DR equation had the best fit for the gas adsorption curve (R2=0.9986), followed by Langmuir and BET. While the statistical fit is strong, could you elaborate on the physical implications of the DR equation being the best fit, particularly in the context of your finding regarding micropore development and filling in anthracite? How does this align with the theoretical underpinnings of the DR model for microporous materials? Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewers. The explanation and response are as follows: The excellent fitting of the DR equation in the micropore adsorption of anthracite is attributed to the following physical reason: The pore size distribution of the sample, the size of the adsorbed molecules, and the "micro-pore volume filling" mechanism assumed by the DR theory are highly consistent. Once the linearization of the DR equation shows a high R², it indicates that the adsorption behavior conforms to the specific mechanism of "micro-pore filling", rather than just being "a good fit". 2.Conclusion (2) states that the single-pore model is suitable for fitting gas adsorption but not desorption, and that the bidisperse (dual-pore) model is more suitable for gas migration at the coal seam scale. Given that the study used coal powder, how do you justify the direct extrapolation of these findings to the "coal seam scale"? What considerations or further research would be needed to bridge this gap effectively? I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their invaluable comments. Your insights are highly forward - looking. The research idea of this paper is that the single - pore model fails to account for the complexity of the coal pore structure, while the dual - pore model is more complex in form and takes into consideration the changes in the pore structure. Based on the fitting results of the model and the coal particle gas diffusion experiment, the diffusion amount in the later stage of the single - pore model is significantly overestimated, and the dual - pore model shows better performance. During the coal seam gas extraction process, the coal body can be regarded as a combination of coal matrix and fractures. Gas diffuses into the surrounding fractures, and the diffusion coefficient decreases continuously over time, which is consistent with the analyses of other scholars. Theoretical analysis indicates that the single - pore model will significantly overestimate the later - stage diffusion amount because its diffusion coefficient is a constant. In contrast, the dual - pore model is controlled by two diffusion coefficients, and their contributions to the overall diffusion coefficient evolve with the diffusion process, resulting in a decrease in the diffusion coefficient over time. The next step of the work will focus on the stress - adsorption - permeability experiments of lump coal to explicitly determine the scaling factor from laboratory parameters to the coal seam scale and its uncertainty interval. 3.You propose that gas adsorption causes coal matrix expansion and deformation, leading to a "blocking effect" where pore throats become smaller than gas molecules, resulting in less desorbed gas than adsorbed gas (Conclusion 3). Do you have any direct experimental evidence (e.g., pore size distribution analysis before and after adsorption, or volumetric changes) to support this hypothesis, beyond the observed difference in adsorption and desorption amounts? If not, could this be explored in future work? We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. At present, there is no direct evidence of aperture distribution or volume change to support the "blocking effect". In the revised version, we have added a low-temperature liquid nitrogen adsorption test to verify this hypothesis. The low-temperature N2 adsorption-desorption curve of the coal sample is shown in Figure 2. According to the IUPAC classification standard, this curve is a combination of type II and type IV(a) curves. In the low-pressure section, the slope of the adsorption curve is relatively large. At this time, the main adsorption mechanism is micro-pore filling. It can be observed that the adsorption and desorption curves do not overlap, and there is a desorption lag phenomenon. The lag line belongs to type H4, indicating that there are a certain number of ink bottle pores. Fig. 2 Low temperature N2 adsorption test results 4. The introduction mentions "Recent studies have shown that the coal matrix has nano-pores with a large specific surface area and pore volume, providing conditions for the occurrence of gas molecules." Did your study include any characterization of the coal powder's pore structure (e.g., using N2 adsorption/desorption, mercury intrusion porosimetry, or SAXS/WAXS) to confirm the presence and characteristics of these nano-pores and micropores, which you suggest are responsible for the observed fitting results of the DR equation? If so, please present those data. We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. To further characterize the existence and characteristics of the nanoscale pores and micropores in the text, electron microscopy scanning and low-temperature liquid nitrogen adsorption experiments were conducted. The apparent morphology of the coal samples was observed using a scanning electron microscope, as shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that the surface of the coal samples is rough and is covered with various-sized and-shaped pore networks, providing a vast space for the adsorption of methane gas in the coal. At the same time, as a diffusion and mass transfer channel for CH4 molecules, it causes the complex dynamic evolution characteristics of the diffusion process. Fig. 1 SEM test results The low-temperature N2 adsorption-desorption curve of the coal sample is shown in Figure 2. According to the IUPAC classification standard, this curve is a combination of type II and type IV(a) curves. In the low-pressure section, the slope of the adsorption curve is relatively large. At this time, the main adsorption mechanism is micro-pore filling. It can be observed that the adsorption and desorption curves do not overlap, and there is a desorption lag phenomenon. The lag line belongs to type H4, indicating that there are a certain number of ink bottle pores. Fig. 2 Low temperature N2 adsorption test results Reviewer #2: The authors have conducted a novel study on the extraction of coalbed methane, including an adsorption equilibrium study at various pressure points and a desorption analysis. The manuscript is well written and concise. 1.[Page 1, Line 8]: Take into consideration defining "self-developed experimental device" and briefly discuss any novelty or characteristics. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. This experimental equipment was developed by the team members, not by me personally. This statement has been revised and highlighted in the text. 2.[Page 1, Line 14]: There is no specific reference to back up the fitting advantage of DR in the phrase comparing it to the Langmuir and BET models; think about citing pertinent research. Thank you to the reviewers for your valuable suggestions, which have improved the readability and logic of this article. The following revisions have been made and are highlighted in the text. Anthracite is mainly composed of micropores, and gas molecules are almost completely adsorbed by the micropores. Although the single-pore model can describe the adsorption stage, it fails in the desorption stage due to the neglect of the dynamic changes of the diffusion coefficient. Therefore, the DR equation established based on the micropore filling mechanism has the best fitting effect (R² = 0.9986), which is superior to Langmuir (0.9976) and BET (0.9765). 3.The expression "gas components stored in the form of micropore filling" might be more clearly articulated as "gas molecules are primarily adsorbed in micropores." Thank you for the valuable comments provided by the reviewers, which have helped improve the understanding of this article. The corrections have been made and highlighted in the text. 4.[Page 2, Line 6]: The term "extremely complex" about gas migration in coal lacks precision. It would be beneficial to delineate the various forms of complexity, such as heterogeneity and dual porosity, among others. Particles are primarily retained within the confines of micropores. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have made the necessary revisions based on these suggestions and have highlighted them in the text. However, the dual-porosity structure of coal media results in highly heterogeneous characteristics for gas storage and migration. The complexity can be attributed to three points: Firstly, the permeability difference of the micropore-fissure system reaches 3 to 4 orders of magnitude; Secondly, the dynamic contraction of pore diameters caused by the coupling of effective stress and adsorption expansion; Thirdly, the patchy distribution of in-situ gas-water two-phase flow in space. Particularly crucially, gas molecules are mainly bound in the <2 nm matrix micropores, and their effective diffusion coefficient changes synchronously with the expansion-contraction effect, becoming the core bottleneck of the desorption-diffusion-permeation coupling process. 5.[Page 2, Line 14]: Reference [10] asserts that "bright coal had poor pore connectivity." Please provide a more detailed technical explanation or specify the parameters related to "poor connectivity." Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have made the necessary revisions based on these suggestions and have highlighted them in the text. Li Weibo et al [10] found the threshold entry pressure for gas in vitrain (0.20-1.03 MPa) and its median capillary pressure (8.16-10.14 MPa) are 3-15 and 1.5-2.4 times higher, respectively, than those in durain, indicating a significantly elevated barrier to gas invasion. Mercury-withdrawal efficiency is only 25.46-41.85 %, lower than that of durain, demonstrating a high proportion of ink-bottle or semi-closed pores. The mercury-injection curve continues to rise at high pressures without reaching a plateau, and the nitrogen hysteresis loop is 15-25 % larger than in durain; together, these features confirm that the pore throats are highly tortuous and the connectivity is restricted. 6.[Page 2, Line 23]: The sentence beginning with "Numerous studies..." lacks specificity. It would be beneficial to articulate a particular knowledge gap that your research aims to fill. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have made the necessary revisions based on these suggestions and have highlighted them in the text. Many scholars have respectively expounded the laws of coal body gas adsorption/desorption from perspectives such as coal rank, pore structure, fractal model, structural deformation, adsorption heat effect, and acidification modification. 7.[Page 3, Line 1]: Specify the precise mass of the coal sample utilized in each experiment to enhance reproducibility. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have made the necessary revisions based on these suggestions and have highlighted them in the text. 8.[Page 3, Line 6]: The term "appropriate number of swabs" lacks precision; it would be beneficial to quantify this or clarify the intended purpose of the swabs. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. Now, let's explain the description of the appropriate amount of absorbent cotton. The absorbent cotton is used to prevent the coal powder from being drawn out during vacuuming, so that it can cover the coal sample and prevent the coal powder from being drawn out, but it does not participate in the experimental process and has no impact on the experiment. 9.[Page 3, Line 12]: It would be beneficial to specify the time required to achieve adsorption equilibrium at each pressure point. Thank you for the valuable comments provided by the reviewers. Now, I will explain this time expression. From the curve of adsorption amount changing with time, it can be explained that the pore structure is complex and diffusion requires a long time. The ideal concept of complete equilibrium is achieved at this point. However, the diffusion decays rapidly over time. The majority of the adsorption-diffusion amount occurs in the initial stage, and the equilibrium time is related to the scale of the coal sample. The larger the coal sample, the slower the adsorption-diffusion process, and the longer the equilibrium time. Each experiment ensures that the adsorption time is 12 hours, which can be considered to have reached the adsorption equilibrium condition. 10.[Page 4, Line 3]: In the discussion of Figure 2, where it states that the “adsorbed gas volume increased sharply,” please include specific time or pressure values to substantiate this observation. Thank you for the valuable comments provided by the reviewers, which have helped improve the understanding of this article. The corrections have been made and highlighted in the text. From 0 to 12 min, the volume of adsorbed gas rose sharply as the gas flowed into the coal sample cell. 11.[Page 4, Line 20]: The formatting of equation numbers (1), (2), and (3) lacks consistency and proper alignment. Thank you for the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewers. Now, the format of the equation numbers in the text has been modified and highlighted in red. 12.[Page 4, Line 28]: The phrase “still 0.9765” could be revised for a more formal tone to "remained relatively high at 0.9765." Thank you for the valuable comments provided by the reviewers, which have helped improve the understanding of this article. The corrections have been made and highlighted in the text. 13.[Page 5, Line 5]: It would be beneficial to compare your desorption result (14.7 ml/g) with values from existing literature, as this could aid in validating the experiment. Thank you to the reviewers for your valuable suggestions, which helped verify the accuracy of the experiment. The content has been revised and highlighted in red. At a pressure of 1 MPa and a temperature of 40 ℃, we measured the final desorption volume of the coal sample to be 17.7 cm³/g. This value is regarded as the theoretical limit under the constant pressure (atmospheric pressure) boundary condition; however, as shown in Figure 6, due to factors such as diffusion retardation and matrix contraction, the measured desorption volume only reached 14.7 cm³/g, which is equivalent to 83.1% of the theoretical value. This result is consistent with that reported in Reference [1] under similar conditions (0.8 MPa, 30 ℃), and it also conforms to the increasing trend with the increase in initial pressure, thereby indirectly verifying the accuracy of this experiment. 14.[Page 5, Line 9]: The statement "some gas escaped..." could be enhanced by incorporating additional detail or quantifying the error associated with gas loss. Thank you for the valuable comments provided by the reviewers, which have helped improve the understanding of this article. The corrections have been made and highlighted in the text. Some gas leaks can cause the actual gas pressure or concentration to deviate from the set value, thereby underestimating the adsorption capacity by 1% - 4%, the permeability by 5% - 7%, and the deformation error of the coal body by approximately 0.05 - 0.2 × 10⁻² mm; the leakage effect is more pronounced at high temperatures. 15.[Page 6, Line 2]: Kindly furnish the boundary conditions or geometric details employed in the COMSOL simulations. Thank you to the reviewers for your valuable suggestions, which helped verify the accuracy of the experiment. The content has been revised and highlighted in red. Without considering the coupling of multiple physical fields, only the gas diffusion field is considered. Therefore, the boundary condition is that the surface of the coal particles is set as a Dirichlet boundary condition, with a pressure of 0.1 MPa, and the initial pressure is the adsorption equilibrium pressure of the Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reply to the review comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338859.r002
26 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Xinyuan Gao, Editor Dear Dr. Li, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2026 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, Xinyuan Gao 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. [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 Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** Reviewer #1: The authors addressed all the comments during the revision; therefore, the manuscript can be accepted in its present form. Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the comments very nicely, and I will recommend the editor to accept this manuscript for punlication. Reviewer #3: This manuscript has been systematically revised in response to the previous review comments, with a significant improvement in overall quality and a notable enhancement in the scientific rigor and completeness of the research. However, combined with the content of the revised version, there are still some minor details that need further clarification and improvement, as follows: 1. In Step 3 of Section 1.4, the specific values or range of the "specified pressure" have not been stated. 2. The three subfigures in Figure 5 can be distinguished by labeling them as (a), (b), and (c). 3. The following papers may be useful: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2022.11.002; DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.01.008; DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2021.1936692; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124228 4. In the main text of Section 3.2, the terms "single-pore model" and "dual-pore model" are used, while the legends in Figures 7 and 8 are labeled as "Single-hole model fitting" and "Two-hole model fitting". It is suggested to unify the terminology to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. ****** 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: THUMPATI PRASANTH Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338859.r003
Revision 2
26 Nov 2025 Author Response Reviewer #3: This manuscript has been systematically revised in response to the previous review comments, with a significant improvement in overall quality and a notable enhancement in the scientific rigor and completeness of the research. However, combined with the content of the revised version, there are still some minor details that need further clarification and improvement, as follows: 1. In Step 3 of Section 1.4, the specific values or range of the "specified pressure" have not been stated. Thank you to the reviewers for their careful reading. It was indeed not specified what the pressure conditions were. Now it has been revised and highlighted in the text. 3. The reference gas was charged into the reference vessel at a pressure of 1–5 MPa. The valve between the reference and coal-sample vessels was then opened to initiate the gas-adsorption process. 2. The three subfigures in Figure 5 can be distinguished by labeling them as (a), (b), and (c). Thank you to the reviewers for your careful reading. We have made revisions according to your suggestions. 3. The following papers may be useful: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2022.11.002; DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.01.008; DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2021.1936692; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124228 Thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions; the recommended references are extremely valuable and provide important support for the research on gas. 4. In the main text of Section 3.2, the terms "single-pore model" and "dual-pore model" are used, while the legends in Figures 7 and 8 are labeled as "Single-hole model fitting" and "Two-hole model fitting". It is suggested to unify the terminology to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. Thank you to the reviewers for your careful reading. We have made revisions according to your suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reply_to_the_review_comments_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338859.r004
30 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Xinyuan Gao, Editor Research on the evolution mechanism of main control factors for coalbed methane extraction PONE-D-25-29825R2 Dear Dr. Li, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. 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, Xinyuan Gao Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** Reviewer #3: (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 #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338859.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Xinyuan Gao, Editor PONE-D-25-29825R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Li, 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. Xinyuan Gao Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338859.r006

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 .