https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7941-4948
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionSeptember 19, 2025 |
|---|
|
-->PONE-D-25-51186-->-->Analysis and Source Identification of Dust Pollution in Khuzestan Province Using MODIS and SENTINEL Satellite Data and HYSPLIT Model (2018–2022)-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yousefi Kebriya, 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 Dec 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Mikalai Filonchyk 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 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 42361144884 and 42171291) and the Joint HKU-CAS Laboratory for iEarth (313GJHZ2022074MI, E4F3050300). The authors appreciate the support of Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University.” 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: “The data underlying the results presented in this study were obtained from multiple sources. Meteorological and environmental variables were processed and extracted using Google Earth Engine. Some datasets were provided by the Department of Environment of Iran, while high-resolution HYSPLIT input data were obtained from the NOAA website. Additionally, MODIS true-color satellite imagery was sourced from NASA. All relevant processed data generated and analyzed during this study are included 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. We note that Figure 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 17 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 17 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year]. “ 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 6. Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 34. 7. 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. Additional Editor Comments: While your manuscript addresses a relevant and important topic, the reviewers have raised serious concerns that must be resolved before any further consideration. In particular, Reviewer #2 identified that several figures and tables appear to be nearly identical to those in Yousefi-Kebriya et al., 2025 (Scientific Reports). This raises a potential issue of data duplication and originality, which is unacceptable if confirmed. You are required to provide a clear and detailed explanation regarding this matter, including the provenance of all datasets and figures used. Until this issue is fully clarified and justified, the editorial process cannot proceed. Reviewer's Responses to Questions -->Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ********** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ********** -->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 Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper about a dusty part of Iran and makes a good contribution to the literature. However, it needs considerable modification before it can be published, as follows: L52 ‘global challenge with far-reaching consequences for ecosystems, human health, and climate systems (Siddiqua et al. 2022).’ Two comments: a) the Siddiqua et al. 2022 paper is not about dust storms! b) there are many more consequences for human society that should be mentioned, sectors impacted include agriculture, transport, power generation (see eg https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeolia.2016.12.001 ), for climatic impacts see eg https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00379-5 L53-55 ‘increasing frequency and intensity of these storms’ IN SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD. Not all. In others frequency and intensity have declined in recent times. L 59-67 I would delete this paragraph. It is very generalised, selective and adds little to the paper. In its place, I want to see a review of some of the numerous other papers on dust storms affecting Khuzestan (including papers documenting the ‘traditional perspective that attributes most of Khuzestan’s dust storms to Iraqi and Syrian deserts’ as cited at L661, and papers that identify the Shadegan wetland as a dust source, eg https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-024-01856-x ). 1.2. Review of previous studies: this is a curious assortment of studies. I suggest the authors focus only on those relevant to this paper (i.e studies using MODIS and SENTINEL data and the HYSPLIT Model). Hence delete Alebic-Juretic et al. (2023), Schiavo et al. (2023) and others with little relevance to this paper. 2.1. Study Area should come before 1.3. Objectives and innovations of the study L180-187 delete from ‘This province is situated in the southwest of Iran…………..’ to ‘….along the shores of the Persian Gulf.’ All this information is on the map or irrelevant. L196 how many monitoring stations? L224 where does the Air Quality Index (AQI) come from? (Yousefi Kebriya, 2023) is not in the references. L 254 Wind does not form dust. Wind is a critical meteorological factor influencing the EMISSION and dispersion of dust. L 364 ‘variations clearly indicate an increase in dust pollution levels, particularly in PM10, during 2022’ do they? Increase relative to when? The logic is strange. L754 Figure 13. Does not show a trend, just variation in wetland area. L840-863 and Figure 15: these stations need to be labelled on the study area map – most readers will not know where they are. L 985 ‘the contribution of both internal and external dust sources’ does this mean sources inside Iran and from other countries? L1004 ‘the study examined the statistical relationship between the monthly area of the Shadegan Wetland and the number of dust-polluted days in Shadegan city’ but Shadegan city is only mentioned here and in the abstract! It must also appear in the main text! Reviewer #2: This work represents a study aimed at analyzing the relationships between climatic factors, land degradation, and environmental consequences in a specific region. The topic is relevant, being related to climate risks, soil degradation, and ecosystem resilience. Nevertheless, in its current form, the manuscript does not meet the standards of an original research study, which require quantitative rigor, analytical novelty, and data transparency. The novelty is not explicitly demonstrated. The authors largely reiterate well-known relationships (temperature increase → ecosystem degradation) without presenting a new mechanism, approach, or original model. It is also unclear which specific scientific gaps in the existing literature this study addresses. The abstract exceeds 450 words, which is unacceptable. The authors need to reduce it to 250 words, keeping only the most essential information. At the first mention of models and tools, the full names should be written (e.g., Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) before using abbreviations such as HYSPLIT or MODIS. Line 179: “29.95 to 33.55 degrees north and 47.66 to 50.55 degrees east” — degrees should be indicated using the degree symbol (°). Figures 2 and 3, and Table 1: THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. These figures are approximately 90% identical to a previously published work: Yousefi-Kebriya, A., Nadi, M., Afaridegan, E., & Sun, Z. (2025). Wetland shrinking and dust pollution in Khuzestan Iran: insights from Sentinel-5 and MODIS satellites. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 13626. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96935-2. Comments from the authors on this issue are requested. The authors state that air-mass back trajectories based on the NOAA-HYSPLIT model were used to identify potential source regions influencing the observed aerosol properties. However, the interpretation of these trajectories is presented only qualitatively and lacks supporting quantitative analysis such as trajectory clustering or residence-time analysis. As a result, the discussion of possible source regions remains largely speculative. It is strongly recommended that the authors perform a more systematic analysis of air-mass trajectories — for example, through cluster analysis or concentration-weighted trajectory methods — to better quantify the contribution of different transport pathways. Methodological examples can be found in Figure 1 of (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.104935) and Figure 10 of (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106518), which demonstrate more rigorous trajectory-based source interpretation. The methodology section is overly descriptive and lacks concrete details — specific model parameters, statistical tests, number of observations, and spatial resolution of the data are not provided. While the authors use MODIS AOD and HYSPLIT data, no full information is given. The manuscript does not explain what MODIS is, its spatial coverage, which product is used, its uncertainties, or on which satellites it is installed. All results are presented descriptively without quantitative analysis (no tables with coefficients or confidence intervals). Statistical testing of differences between regions or time periods is not performed. There is considerable duplication of figures (Figures 7–11) and text without analytical interpretation. The authors are strongly advised to reduce these figures as they add little value, and instead strengthen the quantitative interpretation by including numerical comparisons, dynamic trends, and correlation/regression results. Figure 16: MODIS AOD Figure 17: SENTINEL AAI The text lacks a brief explanation of why maximum (AOD Max) and cumulative (AOD Sum) values were chosen for analysis rather than more conventional statistics (e.g., mean or median). Please add a paragraph in the methodology section explaining that AOD Max helps identify areas of highest environmental risk and peak health impact, whereas AOD Sum allows the assessment of cumulative load on ecosystems and populations. A key issue with the AOD Max index is its high sensitivity to noise and artifacts in satellite data (e.g., undetected clouds, algorithm errors over bright surfaces, short-term sensor failures). What specific quality assurance (QA) procedures were applied to the daily MODIS AOD data before calculating annual AOD Max composites? Please specify which QA flags from the original MCD19A2 product were used to exclude unreliable pixels. To improve robustness, consider using, for example, the 99th percentile or the mean of the top-5 maximum values per year instead of the absolute maximum. This would make the index less sensitive to single outliers. To confirm that peak AOD Max values correspond to dust storms rather than artifacts, supporting evidence is needed. Please provide, for several key dates with critical AOD Max values (e.g., 2018 and 2022 in northwestern regions), corresponding natural-color satellite images (MODIS True Color). This will clearly demonstrate the association of AOD peaks with actual dust events rather than clouds. The AOD Sum index effectively represents cumulative load; however, its physical interpretation may not be immediately clear to the reader. Briefly clarify in the text that this index can be considered a proxy for the total number of “dust days” or cumulative pollution dose, which is particularly important for assessing long-term impacts. Lastly, vehicles are strongly advised to use the latest sandstorm related work in other regions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101762 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-23-0121.1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-07003-3 Reviewer #3: Comments on the manuscript “Analysis and Source Identification of Dust Pollution in Khuzestan Province Using MODIS and SENTINEL Satellite Data and HYSPLIT Model (2018–2022)" The present study examines dust pollution dynamics in Khuzestan from 2018 to 2022 using an integrated approach that combines satellite-derived AOD and Aerosol Absorption Index (AAI), ground-based PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ measurements, HYSPLIT backward trajectory modeling, wind rose analyses, and wetland area assessments via the Modified Normalized Difference Water Index (MNDWI). The relationship between the monthly Shadegan Wetland area and dust-polluted days in Shadegan city was evaluated using key statistical metrics. Analysis of 2022 data revealed strong correlations between satellite-derived AOD and ground-based PM₂.₅ confirming the reliability of satellite observations. PM₂.₅ concentrations ranged from 40 to 700 µg/m³, and PM₁₀ from 75 to 800 µg/m³, peaking in 2022 due to prolonged drought, wetland desiccation, and transboundary dust inflows. Five extreme dust storms in 2022 (AQI = 500, except Storm 5 at 473) were traced using HYSPLIT and MODIS imagery. Storms 1–4 originated from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, descending below 500 m in Khuzestan, while Storm 5 emerged from southern Iran (Hormozgan, Makran coasts) and the Persian Gulf, rising to 2,500 m before descending below 500 m. Wind rose analyses indicated dominant northwest and west winds (> 5 m/s) carrying transboundary dust, while southern Persian Gulf winds intensified local contributions. In 2022, AOD (0.2–2.2) and AAI (-0.1 to 1.3) peaked along desiccated wetland margins. Mitigation strategies require wetland restoration, desertification control, real-time monitoring, regional cooperation, and public awareness. The manuscript requires further major modification as per the following points: Major Comments 1. The authors state that they used coding within the Google Earth Engine platform, but the explanation does not clearly describe which algorithms were implemented or how data filtering, cloud masking, and quality control were performed. Furthermore, in Section 2.3, while a scaling factor of 0.001 is mentioned for MODIS data processing, there is no discussion on how missing values, cloud contamination, or aerosol quality flags were handled. 2. The correlation analysis between wetland area and polluted days shows strong relationships (R² = 0.71 for PM2.5 and 0.68 for PM10), yet the manuscript does not specify the sample size used for these calculations. Contradict in y axis in AOD values with respect to the PM2.5 and PM10. It seems like both the sample size are different. According to your study, corelation should be conducted using data from 2018 to 2022, but it was only performed for the year 2022. Why? 3. Several correlation metrics are presented (Pearson, Spearman, MI, DC), but there is no discussion explaining why their strengths differ or what unique insights each metric contributes. 4. The manuscript lacks any discussion of uncertainties associated with satellite retrievals, model simulations, or statistical analyses. AOD retrievals have known uncertainties, HYSPLIT trajectories have positional uncertainties that increase with time, and the MNDWI-based wetland area estimates are subject to classification errors. These uncertainties should be quantified and their potential impact on the study conclusions discussed. 5. Section 1.2 covers recent dust storm studies using HYSPLIT, it lacks discussion of previous work specifically on Khuzestan Province or similar arid regions in Iran. Given that this is a regional study with policy implications, more context about previous dust research in this specific area would strengthen the introduction. Additionally, the review focuses heavily on HYSPLIT applications but gives less attention to literature on satellite-based dust monitoring and wetland-dust relationships. 6. Wind rose section (correct the section no.) analyses for multiple stations, but this analysis feels disconnected from the main narrative. The wind patterns should be more explicitly linked to the HYSPLIT trajectory results and discussed in terms of how local wind conditions interact with transboundary dust transport. 7. The conclusions mention mitigation strategies such as "wetland restoration, desertification control, real-time monitoring, regional cooperation, and public awareness" but provide no specific, actionable recommendations. Given the detailed analysis presented, the manuscript should offer more concrete suggestions: What wetland restoration techniques are most appropriate? What threshold levels should trigger public health warnings? What specific forms of regional cooperation are needed? Minor Comments 1. The abstract is excessively long and contains too much detailed numerical information. According to PLOS ONE guidelines, abstracts should be concise (less than 300 words). The abstract should be restructured to emphasize key findings rather than listing numerous specific values. 2. Figure 3 attempts to show both land cover and station locations but the color scheme makes it difficult to distinguish between different land cover types. 3. The manuscript uses inconsistent terminology for key concepts. For example, "dust storm," "dust event," and "dust pollution" are used interchangeably without clear definitions. Similarly, "wetland desiccation," "wetland shrinkage," and "wetland area reduction" refer to the same phenomenon. Standardizing terminology throughout would improve clarity. 4. The Results and Discussion section presents findings but rarely compares them with previous studies. For instance, the AOD values, dust storm frequencies, and source attribution results should be compared with earlier research on Khuzestan or similar Middle Eastern regions. How do the identified dust sources align with or differ from previous source apportionment studies? 5. Table 1 presents AQI relationships but the "Hazardous" category for AAI (>5) has no corresponding AOD range, marked with a dash. This seems inconsistent. Additionally, the relationship between AAI and AQI appears oversimplified- is this a direct linear relationship or based on empirical studies? 6. The manuscript analyses "daily MODIS imagery" and mentions "360 images per year," but MODIS Terra and Aqua combined can provide twice-daily coverage. Clarify whether you used Terra only, Aqua only, or combined products, and explain how multiple daily observations were aggregated. 7. Dust Storm No. 5 reveals an interesting pathway through the Persian Gulf and southern Iran, yet this finding is not adequately explored. The manuscript mentions "evaporation processes and surface moisture" but does not quantify these effects or discuss the mechanism by which the Gulf modifies dust transport. This deserves more detailed investigation and cite the references that validate this point. 8. The selection of a 48-hour backward trajectory requires justification, as longer trajectories could help identify more distant source regions. 9. Correct the grammatically error in the whole manuscript especially in line no. 683-699. ********** -->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No 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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
-->PONE-D-25-51186R1-->-->Analysis and Source Identification of Dust event in Khuzestan Province Using MODIS and SENTINEL Satellite Data and HYSPLIT Model (2018–2022)-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Yousefi Kebriya, 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 Feb 06 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Mikalai Filonchyk Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. 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. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ********** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Despite the frequent mention of the HYSPLIT model, its application in the manuscript remains largely indirect and qualitative. The study does not employ standard quantitative trajectory-analysis techniques (trajectory clustering, PSCF, CWT, residence-time analysis), and the interpretation of dust sources is effectively replaced by correlation-based analysis between AOD in Iraq and Ahvaz. Such statistical dependencies demonstrate temporal coherence but do not provide physically grounded, mass-transport–based source attribution. As a result, the role of HYSPLIT is substantially weaker than claimed, and the conclusions regarding dominant source regions remain partially speculative. The authors are strongly encouraged to consult https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.104935 (Figure 1) and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106518 (Figure 10) to refine the cluster-analysis methodology. These works should also be cited in the manuscript. The methodological section has been expanded and formally improved, yet in its current form it remains overloaded and conceptually unfocused. An excessive number of statistical methods is applied without clear justification for their necessity or hierarchy, and many of them ultimately confirm the same relationship between regional and local aerosol loading. This accumulation of techniques gives the impression of methodological inflation rather than a hypothesis-driven analytical framework. Reducing and structuring the methodological toolkit would considerably improve clarity and reproducibility. Figure 1 raises serious concerns regarding scientific graphics quality and the correct representation of the methodological workflow. Visually, it appears to be generated automatically or by AI, which is suggested by generic iconography, inconsistent typography, and incorrect scientific notation—most notably the suspicious rendering of “PM2.5” and “PM10.” The figure must be completely redrawn manually using proper scientific notation and a more rigorous, discipline-appropriate design. Despite the revisions, the question of conceptual originality relative to the authors’ previously published article in Scientific Reports (2025) remains insufficiently resolved. Although the analysis period is extended and additional statistical metrics are introduced, the core region, datasets, physical interpretation, and key conclusions remain largely similar. The authors should clearly and explicitly articulate what fundamentally new scientific question this work addresses, beyond methodological elaboration of already published material. In several sections, correlation-based relationships are interpreted as causal (e.g., dominance of transboundary sources or the influence of wetland degradation on pollution levels). Without explicit causal modeling or physical validation, such interpretations should be substantially softened or clearly presented as associative rather than causal. Despite the stated availability of code and data, the reproducibility of the analysis remains limited. The manuscript does not clearly specify HYSPLIT configuration parameters, the selection criteria for dust-event days, or the exact rules used to construct the AOD-Max and AOD-Sum indices. I fully understand that the authors used daily-resolution data from the official HYSPLIT archive and that higher temporal resolution is not available. However, this makes it even more important to follow my earlier recommendation to apply trajectory clustering according to the methodology outlined in the papers cited above. Sections 2.8.1–2.8.5 should be removed or moved to the supplementary materials. Several statistical metrics (PCA, Bland–Altman, MI, HSIC) are interpreted with excessive confidence, without discussion of their limitations or assumptions. In particular, the use of Bland–Altman for comparing regional and local AOD requires more careful justification, as these quantities are not alternative measurements of the same underlying variable in the strict methodological sense. The authors are also strongly encouraged to cite more recent literature on dust storms, including: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101762 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-23-0121.1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-07003-3 Where is the MODIS uncertainty discussion? Line 207: the symbol “—”what does it mean? Reviewer #3: Comments to Author: Author addressed most of the comments successfully in the revised manuscript entitled “Analysis and Source Identification of Dust event in Khuzestan Province Using MODIS and SENTINEL Satellite Data and HYSPLIT Model (2018-2022)” carefully. Still some minor changes need to be corrected before acceptance of the manuscript. Comment 1: In line no. 259-260: AOD definitions confuse standard concepts: AOD is misdefined as "measured in terms of the number of air particulate molecules per cubic kilometer". (AOD is dimensionless, representing optical extinction). Correct the sentence it. Comment 2: Throughout the manuscript, PM2.5 and PM10 are mentioned at some places and PM2.5 PM10 at others. Please use these symbols uniformly in the whole manuscript. Comment 3: In line numbers 215, 251, 450, 483: correct the word dust ‘event’ to ‘events’. ********** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Abhay Kumar Singh ********** [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.
|
| Revision 2 |
|
-->PONE-D-25-51186R2-->-->Analysis and Source Identification of Dust event in Khuzestan Province Using MODIS and SENTINEL Satellite Data and HYSPLIT Model (2018–2022)-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Yousefi Kebriya, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Joanna Tindall, PhD Staff 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: Please include the appropriate attributions to Figure 2, 3 and Table 1. Please take this opportunity to check that all tables, figures and datasets are correctly attributed and their sources cited appropriately. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions -->Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ********** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** -->6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed the major concerns raised in the previous review and have substantially improved the methodological rigor and clarity of the manuscript. Given the revisions and strengthened analyses, I recommend the article for publication in its current form. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Abhay Kumar Singh ********** [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. --> |
| Revision 3 |
|
Analysis and Source Identification of Dust event in Khuzestan Province Using MODIS and SENTINEL Satellite Data and HYSPLIT Model (2018–2022) PONE-D-25-51186R3 Dear Dr. Yousefi Kebriya, 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, Mikalai Filonchyk Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-25-51186R3 PLOS One Dear Dr. Yousefi Kebriya, 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. Mikalai Filonchyk Academic Editor PLOS One |
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 .