Spatial distribution of health-risky road traffic noise pollution in Dessie City, North East Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVE: Dessie is the trade center for northeast Ethiopia. High traffic flow plus overacting of promotion made the city noisy. There is a shortage of relevant evidence that enforces policy makers to design intervention plans. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the health-risky road traffic noise pollution in Dessie City, Ethiopia.
METHODS: The study was conducted by purposive selection of the study area and sampling sites of the city from May 31, 2021 -June 6, 2021. Noise level recordings were taken by a digital Sound Meter and location data was collected by Global Positioning System. Residential, health facility, commercial, and mixed sites were identified by field observation. A total of 20 noise sampling points were included. The sampling points were selected by considering World Health Organization guideline. The measurements were taken twice a day at peak hours, between 8:00-11:00am and 4:00-7:00pm on all days of the week. The sound level meter was placed at a height of 1.5m and 2m from the curb. A total of 280 sound level records were conducted over one week.
RESULTS: Among twenty noise recording sites, more than 50% of them registered as excessive noisy sites for all types of site categories (health facility, residential, commercial, and mixed areas). For the seven days, average noise recordings were in the range of 66-72 dB at 83% of mixed areas; 33% of health facilities; 25% of residential areas, and 86% of commercial areas. The highest levels of noise pollution were seen at the Bus-station, Buanbuawuha Square, Tekuam, Arada, Ethio General Hospital, Ersha-seble, and Menafesha areas.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that the average noise level measurement within a week exceeded the permissible limits set by Ethiopia and the World Health Organization. It helps for policy development and timely actions against noise pollution and as baseline information for further investigation.

1. Introduction

Noise is unwanted sound and a serious cause of global worry, especially in urban areas of developing and developed nations [1]. Noise pollution is a significant environmental problem in many rapidly urbanizing areas. Environmental noise pollution, a form of air pollution, is a threat to health and wellbeing. It is more severe and widespread than ever before, and it will continue to increase in magnitude and severity because of population growth, urbanization, and the associated growth in the use of increasingly powerful, varied, and highly mobile sources of noise [2]. This problem is not recognized despite the fact that it is steadily growing in developing countries [3].

According to Robert Koch “A day will come, man will have to fight merciless noise as the worst enemy of health”. The major cities of the world are now facing the problem of the rise in noise pollution due to very high population, transportation, congestion and associated commercial and industrial activities. Though, the urban population is much more affected by such pollution; however, small town/villages along side roads or industries are also a victim of this problem [4]. Excessive noise is a global occupational health hazard with considerable social and physiological impacts, including noise-induced hearing loss [5], cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairment in children, sleep disturbance, tinnitus, and annoyance among the exposed groups [6]. The major sources of noise are vehicles, musical instruments, small scale industries, bars, night clubs, religious speakers, urbanization, and human activities [4, 7]. Among urban noise sources, road traffic noise is the highest contributor to noise pollution. It is also a big challenge for urban planners and environmental engineers to overcome road traffic noise in cities [8].

Tens of millions of Americans suffer from a range of adverse health outcomes due to noise exposure, including heart disease and hearing loss [9]. According to a European Union (EU) publication, about 40% of the population in EU countries is exposed to road traffic noise at levels exceeding 55 dB; 20% is exposed to levels exceeding 65 dB during the daytime; and more than 30% is exposed to levels exceeding 55 dB at night [10]. Noise pollution is the least addressed issue in Ethiopia and in Africa in general [11].

In the developed world, a lot of actions such as noise pollution control legislations, regulations, and noise policies have been taken to minimize the problems of noise pollution [12]. Among developing countries, Ethiopia has established a comprehensive environmental policy in which the overall policy goal is aimed at improving and enhancing the health and quality of life of people. One of the objectives of Environmental Pollution Control Proclamation 300/2002 is to control noise pollution [13]. Though there have been a policy and laws addressed to noise pollution which have never been implemented properly due to the lack of programs, this country has not yet fully recognized noise pollution as human health risk factors [13-17]. The amount of noise in Addis Ababa from such sources is the day-to-day grumbles of the residents [18, 19]. The report presented by Mahlet G., for the Forum for Environment confirmed that noise pollution in Addis exceeded the standard given by WHO (1999) [20].

A study done in Dire Dawa City indicated that the average noise level measured at commercial, residential and mixed sites was higher than the acceptable limit set by WHO [21]. The trend is almost the same in the studied metropolitan cities of Ethiopia. Since Dessie is the trade center for North East Ethiopia, high traffic flow plus overacting of promotion made the city noisy. Beyond the above-mentioned little evidence, there are no studies conducted in this city which show the issue and force policy makers to take measures. Thus, studying this issue spatially is essential for both timely actions against noise pollution and as baseline information for further investigation.

2. Methods and materials

2.1. Study setting, period, and materials

Dessie City was founded in 1882. Dessie is located in the northern part of Ethiopia in the Amhara National Regional State, South Wollo Zone, at a distance of 400 km from Addis Ababa. Its astronomical location is 11°08’ North Latitude and 39°38’ East Longitude. Dessie is one of the reform towns in the region and has a city administration consisting of a municipality and urban and rural Kebeles (the lowest administrative level in Ethiopia). The city has a structural plan which was prepared in 2010 [22]. According to Central Statistics Agency 2014 E.C projection, the total population of the city is 285,530 (Dessie City Administration Health Department 2014 fiscal year plan, unpublished); it has four gates of roads from different directions. There are more than four main roads within the city. The study was conducted by purposive selection of the study area and sampling sites of the city from May 31, 2021 –June 6, 2021. Both Dessie city polygon and its main road polylines were obtained by digitization from Google Earth Pro.

2.2. Sample size determination

By considering the main roads, residential, commercial, and mixed sites were identified by field observation. A total of 20 sampling points were selected for measuring sound levels using a calibrated scientific digital sound level meter. The sampling points where noise pollution was expected were selected by considering World Health Organization guideline and professional judgments (which means that the author decided to select some sampling points as per the knowledge/experience of the author and current situations of the field sites). The measurements were taken twice a day at peak hours, between 8:00–11:00am and 4:00–7:00pm using a digital Sper Scientific Sound Meter 840029 on all days of the week. The sampling time for each measurement was 30 minutes. The sound level meter was placed at a height of 1.5m and 2m from the curb. So, a total of 280 sound level records were conducted over one week. The global Positioning System (GPS) was used to collect coordinates’ data from twenty noise level measurement points.

A total of six recording sites (#1, 2, 5, 8, 12, and 15) are mixed (both residential and commercial) areas. Three recording sites (#9, 10, and 11) are areas of health facilities having loads of patients flow. Four recording sites (#13, 17, 18, and 20) are residential areas. Seven recording sites (#3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 16, and 19) are commercial areas.

A day’s average noise level recording means the average of Morning (8:00am– 11:00am) and Afternoon (4:00pm– 7:00pm) recordings per sampling site.

A week’s average noise level recording is the summation of average recordings of each day per week.

2.4. Data collection procedures, tools and quality control

Data collectors and supervisors were trained on the objective of the study, how to take noise levels, and coordinate data using a noise level meter and GPS, respectively. The noise level meter and GPS tools were checked for calibrations. Noise level recordings were taken with calibrated digital Sper Scientific Sound Meter 840029 and location data were collected by BHCnav pro F78 Global Positioning System. Noise level and location data were recorded both in digital and respective paper-based recording formats. The investigator and supervisors supervised the data collection and took immediate corrections upon errors were introduced.

2.5. Data analysis and interpretation

Since road traffic noise is continuing sound, the noise parameters and statistical parameters were measured and described in terms of noise level standard values such as A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level (LAeq), A-weighted ten-percentile noise level (L10), and instantaneous maximum noise level (Lmax) [23].

A day’s average noise levels were calculated by Eq (1) and a week’s average noise levels were computed by Eq (2) below.

Where,

○ Day represents day 1, 2, 3, …, 7

○ M is Morning record for each day

○ A Afternoon record for each day

The noise levels were logarithmically averaged (L) as L1, L2, L3,——Ln.

Where,

L = Average noise level (dBA) or Leq = Equivalent noise levels,

L1, L2 …Ln = Observed noise levels from 1 to nth, (in dBA).

N = Total number of observed noise levels.

During all processes of calculation, the order of the recorded noise values was maintained properly. The measurement was taken in calm and non-disturbing conditions, i.e. in the absence of rain, wind disturbance and other interfering noise generating activities nearby.

2.6. Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee () of College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wollo University. Support letter was obtained from Dessie City Administration Health Department.

3. Results

Among twenty noise recording sites (named as Sites 1 and 2: Arada; Site 3: Gimruk; Site 4: Salayish; Site 5: Piassa-Taxi queue to Tequam; Site 6: Piassa to bus station road; Site 7: Gate of bus station; Site 8: Fasika Hotel; Site 9: Gate of Selam General Hospital; Site 10: Gate of Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital; Site 11: Gate of Ethio General Hospital; Site 12: Abebech Wollo–Menafesha to St. Gebriel road; Site 13: In front of St. Gebriel Church; Site 14: Buanbuwa wuha Square–in front of Dashen Bank district office; Site 15: Buanbuwa wuha Condominium; Site 16: Dolphin–United Bank-Buanbuawuha branch; Site 17: Gate of Red Cross Condominium; Site 18: Terminal Condominium–Tekuam to Piassa Road; Site 19: Tekuam–in front of Abyssinia Bank; and Site 20: Ersha-Seble Condominium), more than 50% of them registered as excessive noisy sites for all types of site categories (health facility, residential, commercial, and mixed areas). Noise recording was taken for seven days from Monday to Sunday two times a day and average values were taken for this report. The day time (morning and afternoon) noise levels were taken in terms of noise statistical parameters such as LAeq L10, and Lmax ().

Daily average (morning and afternoon) and a week average road traffic noise levels in decibels in Dessie city administration, northeast Ethiopia.

(Sampling sites 1: Arada 1; 2: Arada 2; 3: Gumruk; 4: Salayish; 5: Piassa; 6: Piassa to bus station; 7: Bus station; 8: Fasika Hotel; 9: Selam G. Hospital; 10: Dessie Comprehensive Specialized Hospital; 11: Ethio G. Hospital; 12: Abebech Wollo; 13: St. Gebriel Church; 14: B/Wuha Square; 15: B/Wuha Condominium; 16: Dolphin; 17: Red Cross Condominium; 18: Terminal Condominium; 19: Tequam; 20: Ersha-seble Condominium).

On Monday, in general, noise levels were in the range of 66–73 decibels (dB) at study sites 1–9, 11, 13, 14, and 19. Noise levels were in the range of 62–65 decibels at study sites 10, 15–18, and 20. Specifically, noise levels were above 65 dB at four (67%) of mixed areas; six (86%) of commercial areas; one (25%) of residential areas; and two (67%) of health facility areas. Noise levels were above 55 dB at one (33%) of sampled health facility areas; two (33%) of mixed areas; one (14%) of commercial areas; and three (75%) of residential areas On Tuesday, noise levels registered from 66–72 dB at all mixed areas; one (33%) of health facilities areas; and five (71%) of commercial areas. Noise levels ranged from 62–65 dB at the rest of the study sites (particularly hospitals, mixed, and residential areas) (.

On Wednesday, noise level readings were in the range of 66–73 dB at all mixed areas; one (25%) of residential areas; and six (86%) of commercial areas. The rest of the areas registered from 59–65 dB noise levels. On Thursday, noise levels registered from 66–72 dB at all mixed areas; one (33%) of health facilities areas; one (25%) residential areas and six (86%) of commercial areas. Noise levels ranged from 60–65 dB at the rest of the study sites (particularly hospitals, mixed, and residential areas) (.

On Friday, noise levels were from 66–73 dB at all mixed areas; one (33%) of health facilities areas; and at all commercial areas. Noise levels ranged from 62–65 dB at the rest of the study sites (particularly hospitals, mixed, and residential areas). On Saturday, noise levels were from 66–73 dB at all mixed areas; two (67%) of health facilities areas; two (50%) of residential areas, and six (86%) of commercial areas. Noise levels ranged from 60–65 dB at the rest of the study sites (particularly hospitals, mixed, and residential areas) (.

On Sunday, noise levels were recorded from 66–73 dB at all sampled mixed areas; one (25%) of residential areas; and at all commercial areas. The rest recordings ranged from 60–65 dB at all sampled health facilities and the rest of the residential areas. Over all, seven days (one week), average noise recordings were in the range of 66–72 dB at five (83%) of mixed areas; one (33%) of health facilities; one (25%) of residential areas; and six (86%) of commercial areas ().

4. Discussion

This study was conducted at residential, health facility, commercial, and mixed sites purposively selected from 20 areas in the city administration of Dessie, one of the largest cities in the Amhara region, Ethiopia. As indicated in , the all over noise measurements in the study area exceeded the national and international permissible limits set by Ethiopia for residential (55 dB) and commercial (65 dB) [24], and World Health Organization (45 dB and 70 dB) [23]. It is in line with studies done in Addis Abeba [19, 20] and Dire Dawa City Administrations [21, 25, 26]. It may be due to the fact that the city is surrounded by mountains that may aggravate noise pollution [27]; landscape imbalance and proliferation of old cars may force it to emit noisy sounds. Moreover, close proximity of residences to the roadway in mountainous areas exposes the residents to higher levels of traffic noise [27].

Over all, seven days (one week), average noise recordings were in the range of 66–72 dB at five (83%) of mixed areas; one (33%) of health facilities; one (25%) of residential areas; and six (86%) of commercial areas. The results of this study tell us that the sampling areas are noise zones which resemble the definitions given by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 1996–1,2) [28, 29]. The measured average noise level value for the residential site is in the range of 63–66 dB; the highest level being in front of St. Gebriel Church. For mixed sites, it was in the range of 66–69 dB, the highest-rated around the Arada terminal, which is one of the hot spots for business activities. For commercial sites, the noise reading was in the range of 65–72 dB; the highest noise level was around the bus station, which is the main traffic flow and business running area. Regarding health facility sites, noise measurements ranged from 62–66 dB; the highest noise level was recorded at Selam General Hospital followed by Ethio General Hospital.

When comparing recordings among the seven days, except Tuesday and Thursday, all the other days of the week had the highest levels of readings (70–73 dB); seen at the bus station, Buanbuawuha Square, Tekuam, Arada, Ethio General Hospital, Ersha-seble, and Menafesha sites. This may be due to the fact that these days are normal trading days in the locality; people gathering from the city surroundings and urban areas and vehicles can aggravate the noise pollution. Even though Sunday’s high noise pollution is unexpected, many vehicles are coming in and going out to/from the bus station as usual, which may have contributed to the pollution.

In general, this study shows that residents exposed to excessive noise in residential and mixed areas where noise levels are above the limits. The results are even above the noise standard values of LAeq. which are 65 dB and 70 dB for urban residential and commercial and mixed areas at day time, respectively [23, 30]. Thus, they need great attention through developing preventive and mitigation policies and guidelines. The community, due to the lack of awareness and training towards the risks of noise pollution, do not take any safety precautions and are vulnerable to irreversible harmful impacts. Hence, proper urban planning, formulating implementable and acceptable laws and standards, and providing community awareness through training are needed to protect the public against noise pollution which should be maintained at the level of the permissible limits. Moreover, the author recommends the affected people to use earplugs for high-risk areas; shut the door at the time of high traffic load; stay away from noisy areas; and the administration to prohibit car horn, control and follow noise levels, and planting trees near sensitive areas.

5. Conclusions

This study shows that the average noise level measurement within a week exceeded the permissible limits set by Ethiopia and the World Health Organization. The highest levels of noise pollution were seen at the bus station, Buanbuawuha Square, Tekuam, Arada, Ethio General Hospital, Ersha-seble, and Menafesha areas. By nature, noise cannot be diluted, cleansed, collected or reused, but a precautionary principle and maximization approach can be applied, so that no one should involuntarily be exposed to excessive noise that could be harmful to his/her hearing, health, and wellbeing. The city administration shall design mitigation procedures and implement it to reduce the noise pollution in residential, health facility, commercial, and mixed areas.

Details of noise level recordings from twenty sampling sites of Dessie city, northeast Ethiopia, 2021.

The table shows the maximum, the average and the minimum noise level measurements (in dB) for each sampling points across the seven days of the week.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Dec 2021

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,

Ricardo Santos

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

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

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

5. We note that Figures 2, 3, 4 & 5 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

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

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2, 3, 4 & 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6.  We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://aje.com/go/plos) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The Authors are trying to gauge the road traffic noise pollution by evaluating the measured noise levels against the Ethiopian Standard and WHO Standard. However, the parameters of the criteria have not been indicated clearly. For instance, how do Ethiopian Standard and WHO Standard assess the noise levels? Is that Leq, L10, or L90? How long is the duration of the measurements? Noise is fluctuating energy, and thus the measurement duration plays an essential role for those statistical parameters. If the statistical parameter used to express the sound levels have not been indicated clearly, the measurement results are meaningless. Also, I suggest showing the measured noise levels tabulated in Table 1 to be illustrated in chart format for ease of reference.

Reviewer #2: 1) Overall, this paper presented the study on noise pollution in Dessie City by considering noise measurement at health facilities area, residential areas and commercial areas.

2) However, I did not find any contribution or new ideas presented in this paper. It is mainly reporting the outcomes of the measurement result without providing any new ideas or mitigation procedure to control the noise pollution.

3) The measuremen result does not compared with the established standard (ISO 1996-1, etc.). The authors should refers these established standard in the discussion.

4) The presented measurement result should also describe the noise in term of Lmax, L10, and LAeq as these are the standard value used in any noise analysis.

4) It is always good if the authors can provide a new idea or new mitigation procedure in order to reduce noise pollution in urban areas.

5) The authors mentioned about "professional judgement". I think the authors should described in details what type of judgement were considered here.

6) In my opinion, this paper required a lots of improvement in term of technical discussion, standard comparison and contribution in order to meet the requirement to publish in this Journal.

**********

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

[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.

21 Feb 2022

Dear Ricardo Santos,

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

I appreciate your decision to my manuscript and accept my apologies for the late response though I requested you to allow me further due dates due to my field trip. I also thank you all the reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author response to Editor and Reviewers (note:- Comments=C1-20, Response=R1-20)

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-28974

Manuscript Title: Spatial distribution of health-risky road traffic noise pollution in Dessie City, North East Ethiopia

Author: Getahun Gebre Bogale

Editor’s comments /queries

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

C1. 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'.

R1. Uploaded

C2. 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'.

R2. It is done

C3. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

R3. Uploaded as “Manuscript”

Journal Requirements:

C4. 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

R4. I confirm you that the manuscript is prepared as per the PLOS One template

C5. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

R5. Thank you. Of course participants’ consent is mandatory if data are collected from human study participants. In the case of this study, only noise level data were measured/collected (using standardized noise level meter) from the hypothetical risky sites, not from human participants. However, the study was ethically approved by Ethical Review Committee of Wollo University and written permission was gained from Dessie City Administration Health Department.

C6. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

R6. My study is not from a retrospective medical records or archived samples nor it is from patients. See the above response (R5).

C7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

R7. I confirm you that the ethics statement is only appear in the methods section.

C8. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 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:

R8. Since the image is fitted from different images, it’s not possible to get permission from one copyright holder. So, I decided to remove from submission. In its place, I prepared another figure and uploaded just as “Fig 1”.

C9. We note that Figures 2, 3, 4 & 5 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:

R9. Figures 2, 3, 4, & 5 are removed from submission.

C10. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

R10. I confirm you that my manuscript was thoroughly copy edited for language usage, spelling, and grammar by my colleague. Please visit the tracked changes uploaded as “Revised manuscript with track changes”.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

C11. The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript.

R11. The name of my colleague who edited my manuscript is called “Assefa Andargie”.

C12. A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file). A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

R12. Performed well.

Reviewers’ Comments

C13. The Authors are trying to gauge the road traffic noise pollution by evaluating the measured noise levels against the Ethiopian Standard and WHO Standard. However, the parameters of the criteria have not been indicated clearly. For instance, how do Ethiopian Standard and WHO Standard assess the noise levels? Is that Leq, L10, or L90? How long is the duration of the measurements?

Noise is fluctuating energy, and thus the measurement duration plays an essential role for those statistical parameters. If the statistical parameter used to express the sound levels have not been indicated clearly, the measurement results are meaningless.

R13. Thank you very much for your information. Ethiopian standard to assess noise levels is Equivalent noise levels (Leq). The sampling time for each measurement was 30 minutes. Based on your comments, I clearly stated in the methods section.

C14. Also, I suggest showing the measured noise levels tabulated in Table 1 to be illustrated in chart format for ease of reference.

R14. Thanks a lot. I changed to chart and named as “Fig 1”. However, I uploaded the earlier table for details information just as “supporting file”.

C15. Overall, this paper presented the study on noise pollution in Dessie City by considering noise measurement at health facilities area, residential areas and commercial areas. However, I did not find any contribution or new ideas presented in this paper. It is mainly reporting the outcomes of the measurement result without providing any new ideas or mitigation procedure to control the noise pollution.

R15. Thanks. Road traffic noise and its effect on the residents is widely studied especially in developed world. Thus this study may not provide new things here. However, the level of road traffic noise pollution is not well known in cities of developing countries, including Ethiopia as well as not compared with the respective standards/permissible levels. Filling this gap and make recommendations for concerned bodies is the objective of this study. Based on this understanding and your suggestion, I have revised the manuscript at discussion section.

C16. The measurement result does not compared with the established standard (ISO 1996-1, etc.). The authors should refers these established standard in the discussion.

R16. Thank you so much. Revised.

C17. The presented measurement result should also describe the noise in term of Lmax, L10, and LAeq as these are the standard value used in any noise analysis.

R17. Really thank you very much. I have revised in methods, results and discussion sections

C18. It is always good if the authors can provide a new idea or new mitigation procedure in order to reduce noise pollution in urban areas.

R18. The authors revised and included mitigation procedures in the discussion section.

C19. The authors mentioned about "professional judgement". I think the authors should described in details what type of judgement were considered here.

R19. It is described well. Through I consider WHO community-noise guideline, the author decided to select some sampling points as per the knowledge/experience of the author and current situations of the field sites.

C20. In my opinion, this paper required a lots of improvement in term of technical discussion, standard comparison and contribution in order to meet the requirement to publish in this Journal.

R20. Thanks again. I tried to incorporate all your comments. Kindly request you to visit the tracked changes document.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewrs.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 May 2022

31 May 2022

Dear Ricardo Santos,

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

We appreciate your decision to my manuscript and also thank you all the reviewers for your valuable MINOR comments. As per the instructions given by you, we made some corrections to the manuscript and provided responses (rebuttal letter) to each comments given by you and reviewer 2 as follow.

Authors response to Editor and Reviewers (note: - Comments=C1-11, Response=R1-11)

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-28974

Manuscript Title: Spatial distribution of health-risky road traffic noise pollution in Dessie City, North East Ethiopia

Author: Getahun Gebre Bogale

Editor’s comments /queries

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

C1. 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'.

R1. Uploaded as 'Response to Reviewers 2'

C2. 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'.

R2. Uploaded as 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes 2'

C3. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

R3. Uploaded as 'Manuscript 2'

C4. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

R4. No changes in financial disclosure.

Journal Requirements:

C5. 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.

R5. The reference lists are complete and correct

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

C6. All previous comments have been addressed by the authors. Therefore, the manuscript is acceptable.

R6. Thank you so much.

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for addressing all my previous comment. However, I think the author should put more data into this paper. I described in details as below:

C7. 1) In your data analysis and interpretation, you already mentioned about LAeq, L10 and Lmax, please provide all the measurement data according to these parameter (seven days).

R7. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Since the main aim of this study is to show the distribution of health-risky road traffic noise pollution descriptively, we argued to present/interpret in such a way just to make our findings be a readers-friendly. We agreed that use of these technical parameters in detail may not be as such feasible for any lay readers. Of course, measurements are interpreted / compared according to LAeq, L10 and Lmax at discussion section. Few points are also incorporated to this version of revision.

C8. 2) In discussion part, the author mentioned about WHO standard to be at (75dB and 45dB). It will be good if the author can provide the standard table of noise level that it referred to.

R8. Thanks a lot. The standard table of noise level was put at results section as “Table 1”, but it’s rephrased at discussion section. The guideline values for community noise is also indicated in the reference # 23.

C9. 3) In discussion part, line 231 and 232, the author mentioned the result above standard LAeq level which are 65dB and 70dB. The result referred here is from Figure 1 and Table 1? If so, it is appropriate for the average value per day compared to LAeq standard value?

R9. Thank you so much. Take corrections as ‘the results were compared to the standard Table 1 not from Figure 1’

C10. 4) My recommendation is it will be good for the author to be able to present the plotting for LAeq, etc. for comparing the value with the standard values.

R10. Thanks. See R7 above

C11. 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.

R11. We confirm that Fig 1 meets PLOS requirements.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewrs 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Jun 2022

Spatial distribution of health-risky road traffic noise pollution in Dessie City, North East Ethiopia

PONE-D-21-28974R2

Dear Dr. Bogale,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Ricardo Santos

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

6 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-28974R2

Spatial distribution of health-risky road traffic noise pollution in Dessie City, North East Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Bogale:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Ricardo Santos

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

A week average measurement of noise pollution levels (dB) in the four sites of Dessie city, northeast Ethiopia, in comparison to the Ethiopian and WHO standards [24].

Categories of sites	Measured Noise Levels (dB)		Ethiopian Standard (dB)	WHO Standard (dB)
	Maximum	Minimum
Residential	66	63	55	45
Health facility	66	62	=	=
Commercial	72	65	65	70
Mixed	69	65	=	=