-->PONE-D-25-27215-->-->Heavy metal footprints in landfill-proximate soils of Jashore, Bangladesh: An index-based risk assessment-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hossain,

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 19 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:-->

• 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,

Roshan Babu Ojha

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Ref No-SRG243321 (2024-2025 FY), Ministry of Science and Technology, The Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh”

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 in 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 Figures 1,2 and 4 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2 and 4 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 ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

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:

Please provide justification - how 15 samples are sufficient to calculate environmental and human health risk index? How many sub-samples were collected to make 15 composite samples? What is the homogeneity of soil properties within sub-sample collection points? This greatly influences your risk indices.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

**********

-->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

**********

-->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: Heavy metal footprints in landfill-proximate soils of Jashore, Bangladesh: An index-based risk assessment.

Sanjida Sultana Santa 1, Md Kamal Hossain 2,3*, Kowshik Das Karmaker 4, Mohammad Moniruzzaman2,3 , Md. Harunor 3 Rashid Khan 1

Bernardo Sepúlveda.

My observations are:

1. There are several situations in which the plural is used in sentences and should be singular, a couple of examples are: “The average concentrations of Hg, Cd, Pb, Zn, and Cu were higher than, if we are talking about the concept of concentration it should say CONCENTRATION, if we are talking about more than one concentration for each element it would admit the plural; but, it does not seem to be the case; otherwise it should say how many concentrations of each element it is describing. Another example: “While the current contamination levels LEVEL suggest a…”… the “current pollution (I like this word) LEVEL …., etc.

2. In the conclusion it says… “…certain sampling points…”. If these points produce a conclusion, these should be mentioned in some way and in the discussion it should be said what they are or why it is important to be at those points.

3. Regarding the conclusion, it has elements that are not useful for this purpose; I suggest you objectify it to the specific achievements of the work, eliminating phrases that summarize the methodology and discussion. Projections are fine. I propose something like this, it is just an example:

“The average concentration of Hg, Cd, Pb, Zn and Cu was higher than the correspondig values in shale; the concentration of other metals and metalloids was lower than those un shale, although higher than shale level in the …. ¿points?. This results suggest that metal pollution in solils is inked with the regular operation of the landfill. The current level of the contamination ranges from no-polluted to moderately polluted. It is evident that if waste combustión at the landfill continues at the present rate, contamination level are likely to increase in the near future. There was an imbalance in the concentration of metals in the soil samples, varying according to the distance from the landfill and the topography of the terrain. Further research is needed, considering the impact of climatic conditions, human activity and the expansion of the samplig área. It is hypothesised that the burning of waste in landfill is the main factor contributing to the presence of trace elements. This information may prove valuable to researchers and environmental activists studying ecological áreas affected by open dumping of municipal waste, both locally and globally.”

4. In 2.5, there is mention of the software used for the analysis; however, I didn't find the names of the analyses, for example, "Student's t," analysis of variance, Fisher's test, etc. If that's not the case, I haven't mentioned anything; perhaps I did´t see it.

5. I have a reasonable doubt. The results state that certain concentrations are higher or lower than others; however, there are no statistical indicators; they are merely statements based on judgment. I must say this because statistical tests were supposedly applied; therefore, some indicator, such as "p" should have been calculated to confirm the differences between the data.

6. In Table 1... didn't you analysed triplicate samples for each element? I mention this because elsewhere in the text, the value for an element is referred to as "an average." Therefore, if it is an average, it is because there is a statistical error or SD. In these cases the correct nomenclature is xx+xx format. For example, it has been mentioned that 49.6 (unit) is an average of Cr, but the correct value should be 46.9+??.

7. The structure of the tables could be improved, using single-spaced lines and closer columns, specifically in Table 1. Table 3 could be improved, as it repeats the word COEFFICIENT three times; It could be mentioned as a heading on the top line, and the columns could be closer together. All of this would optimize the space occupied.

Coefficient (unit)

A B C

xxxx xxxx xxxx

In general, the work:

a. Addresses an interesting point in current societal issues, such as the impact of garbage dumps.

b. Points to a very important issue such as human health, which is an inalienable right; that is, if this information is used, it would impact the application of people's rights to live in clean environments, etc. I don't need to explain why this is important.

c. Furthermore, it is a local study that could be important to consider for many situations around the world.

d. I believe that the study of anthropogenic pollution is a political duty; we fulfill our duty by making a situation public... I wish the authorities would see this type of information and take action from their positions of power.

e. For me, the work is publishable; but it is also true that the expression must be as good as possible, which is why I recommend that the authors review the work before publishing it.

Atentamente

B. Sepúlveda

Note: Im not used IA for this review.

**********

-->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

**********

[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.

-->PONE-D-25-27215R1-->-->Heavy metal footprints in landfill-proximate soils of Jashore, Bangladesh: An index-based risk assessment-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Hossain,

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 May 01 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:-->

• A 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,

Roshan Babu Ojha

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your patience, we have received major revision from additional reviewer as your original reviewers were not available to track your alterations. Hope to receive your revised version.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->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: No

Reviewer #4: 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: Please address the following comments in your second revision:

1. While you have justified the use of 15 composite samples based on stratified land use, an open dumping site processing 50 tonnes of waste daily likely creates highly heterogeneous contamination plumes. Please provide a more rigorous technical justification in the "Soil Sampling" section explaining why 15 points are sufficient to capture the full extent of this variability without missing localized "hotspots."

2. Your study is restricted to surface soil (0–20 cm). Given the high organic load and leachate production mentioned in your introduction, please discuss the potential for vertical migration of metals into deeper soil profiles, particularly in the tropical, high-rainfall environment of Jashore.

3. Interpolation Accuracy: In Figures 2 and 4, you present spatial distribution maps for metals and risk indices. You must specify the mathematical interpolation method used (e.g., Kriging, IDW) in Section 2.5 to ensure these maps are not over-extrapolating from a limited dataset.

4. Local Control Sites: Currently, your primary reference for contamination is global average "shale values". It is expected that authors use a local "control" site (soil with similar geological properties but distant from landfill influence). Please explain why a local reference was not established or provide data if available.

5. Please include a table in the Supporting Information listing the Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantification (LOQ) for each of the 11 metals analyzed via ICP-MS and AAS. This is essential to verify the precision of your minimum reported values.

6. You report that the Total Cancer Risk (TCR) for Nickel (Ni) in children exceeds permissible thresholds. Given that the school field was leveled using riverside sediment, please expand your discussion on the specific local pathways for this group. Are these children in direct contact with the sediment during daily activities?

7.Your health risk models (HQ, HI, TCR) generally assume 100% bioavailability. Please include a brief discussion on how the bioavailable fraction of these metals might differ from the total concentrations measured, as this is a key factor in screening-level evaluations.

8. In Section 3.6, you attribute metals in PC2 (Hg, Cd, Pb, Cr) to anthropogenic origins such as waste management. Please explicitly reference the specific correlation coefficients from S10 Table in the text to reinforce the statistical link between these elements and waste burning.

I look forward to receiving your point-by-point response and the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3: After having a close look I understand that the manuscript has been properly addressed following the comments. No other comments from myside.

Reviewer #4: Heavy metals that are defined as toxic to the site, As, Hg, Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu and Mn needs to be compared with either standard background values of the area or with other available standard values. According to the FAO/WHO standard value, only Cu value seems to be in the toxic area, exceeding the normal limit. Therefore, I couldnot find any other convincing fact to expalin the available values of above mentiond elements as in danger zone.

**********

-->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: Yes:Gandhiv Kafle

Reviewer #3: Yes:Peiman Zandi

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

Heavy metal footprints in landfill-proximate soils of Jashore, Bangladesh: An index-based risk assessment

PONE-D-25-27215R2

Dear Dr. Hossain,

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,

Roshan Babu Ojha

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations!!! and thank you for your hard work.

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

**********

-->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

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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: No

**********

-->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

**********

-->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: Please make data available publicly, with a public weblink. Follow journal guidelines for this. It is one of the major criteria of the journal.

**********

-->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: Yes:Gandhiv Kafle

**********