Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides an in-depth study of the urban heat island (UHI) phenomenon at the microscale in the center of Annaba. The study adopted a systematic methodology, including quantifying the UHI phenomenon, identifying factors responsible for its occurrence and spread, and experimentally testing potential mitigation strategies. Overall, this manuscript is well written and organized. If the following problems can be well solved, they may be considered for publication in Sustainability magazine.

(1) In describing the method for quantifying the UHI phenomenon, can more details be provided about the instrumentation used, frequency of data acquisition, and accuracy?

(2) In Section 4.1, when discussing the UHI effect of El-Kods Street and Ibn-Khaldoun Street, consider a more detailed analysis of how the building layout, road width, green coverage and other factors of these blocks specifically affect UHI.

(3) In Section 4.2, the impact of building materials, road materials and vehicles on UHI is mentioned. Could these analyzes be expanded further to include a discussion of how these factors interact?

(4) In line 282: Original text: "...the hottest period manifested between 12 a.m. and 3 p.m. culminating in its peak at 2 p.m." where "12 a.m." usually means midnight. If you mean noon, use "12 p.m." or "noon."

(5) In Figure 3, it is recommended to check the style and background consistency of all device pictures in the picture. If some pictures of the equipment are taken outdoors while others are promotional pictures against a white background, this may affect the overall professionalism. Consider using a consistent style of images.

(6) In Figure 7, the line width of the graph is too wide. It is recommended to adjust the width so that readers can more accurately observe the differences between different data.

(7) In Figure 9, it is recommended to add a real picture to better understand its structural layout.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Report in Corrections Made in Response to Reviewer Comments

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2796393

Type: Article

Title:  Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies.

I am grateful for the insightful feedback you provided on my manuscript titled " Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies "submitted to the Special Issue "Urban Overheating in a Context of Climate Change: Measurements, Modeling, Thermal Comfort and Adaptation Strategies" in Sustainability Journal by MDPI. Your constructive comments have been immensely helpful, and we have diligently addressed each of your suggestions to enhance the quality and clarity of the paper.

• Comment 1: In describing the method for quantifying the UHI phenomenon, can more details be provided about the instrumentation used, frequency of data acquisition, and accuracy?

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We have now enhanced the description of our methodology in Section (2.2. Methodological framework) to include more details about the instrumentation used, the frequency of data acquisition, and the accuracy of our measurements. Please see the text in red colour (line 153).

• Comment 2: In Section 4.1, when discussing the UHI effect of El-Kods Street and Ibn-Khaldoun Street, consider a more detailed analysis of how the building layout, road width, green coverage, and other factors of these blocks specifically affect UHI.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion for a more detailed analysis in Section 4.1. We have expanded the discussion on the UHI effect of El-Kods Street and Ibn-Khaldoun Street to include a thorough examination of how building layout, road width, and other factors within these blocks specifically contribute to the observed UHI phenomenon. Please see paragraph starting from line 504.

• Comment 3: In Section 4.2, the impact of building materials, road materials, and vehicles on UHI is mentioned. Could these analyses be expanded further to include a discussion of how these factors interact?

Response: Thank you for your valuable input. In response to your comment, we have expanded the analyses in Section 4.2 to include a more detailed discussion on how building materials, road materials, and vehicles interact and collectively contribute to the urban heat island effect. Please see the corrections on the manuscript, line 615.

• Comment 4: In line 282: Original text: "...the hottest period manifested between 12 a.m. and 3 p.m. culminating in its peak at 2 p.m." where "12 a.m." usually means midnight. If you mean noon, use "12 p.m." or "noon."

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the text in line 309 (originally 282) to accurately reflect the time period discussed. The corrected text now reads, "...the hottest period manifested between 12 p.m. and 3 p.m., culminating in its peak at 2 p.m."

• Comment 5: In Figure 3, it is recommended to check the style and background consistency of all device pictures in the picture. If some pictures of the equipment are taken outdoors while others are promotional pictures against a white background, this may affect the overall professionalism. Consider using a consistent style of images.

Response: I acknowledge and appreciate your concern regarding the stylistic consistency of images in Figure 3. The promotional pictures of the used instruments were intentionally incorporated to illustrate the description provided in the text, while the on-site measurements were visually documented in the accompanying photos.

• Comment 6: In Figure 7, the line width of the graph is too wide. It is recommended to adjust the width so that readers can more accurately observe the differences between different data.

Response: Thank you for your keen observation. We have adjusted the line width to be 13,5 cm in Figure 7, which ensures optimal visibility of differences between data points. This modification improves the clarity and accuracy of the graphical representation.

• Comment 7: In Figure 9, it is recommended to add a real picture to better understand its structural layout.

Response: Your suggestion has been taken into consideration. We have added a real picture to Figure 9 to provide a clearer understanding of its structural layout. This addition aims to enhance the visual representation and comprehension of the depicted structure (Façade design in downtown Annaba; (a) Real façade within Downtown Annaba, (b)Typical facade of Downtown Annaba.).

• Comments on the Quality of English Language: minor editing language required.

Response: We have conducted a thorough review and made minor edits to improve the overall quality of the English language in the manuscript.

We appreciate your careful review and constructive feedback, which have significantly contributed to the refinement of our manuscript.

The revised version of the manuscript is attached for your perusal.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the writing is fine.  A careful copy edit should capture inconsistencies throughout. I have highlighted a few above.

Author Response

Report in Corrections Made in Response to Reviewer Comments

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2796393

Type: Article

Title:  Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies.

I am grateful for the insightful feedback you provided on my manuscript titled " Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies "submitted to the Special Issue "Urban Overheating in a Context of Climate Change: Measurements, Modeling, Thermal Comfort and Adaptation Strategies" in Sustainability Journal by MDPI. Your constructive comments have been immensely helpful, and we have diligently addressed each of your suggestions to enhance the quality and clarity of the paper.

• Comment 1: The abstract is written in both present and past tense; I recommend ensuring consistency.

Response: Acknowledging this oversight, we have revised the abstract, and we used the past tense to maintain a consistent tense throughout. Please see corrections in red colour in the abstract section.

• Comment 2: On line 63, I recommend removing the word “evolve” — transform or develop may be more appropriate here.

Response: Appreciating your suggestion, I have replaced "evolve" with "develop" on line 63 for improved clarity.

• Comment 3: On line 83, I recommend adding “urban” prior to “heat island effect” for consistency.

Response: Thank you for catching that inconsistency. I have added "urban" as suggested to maintain coherence.

• Comment 4: I do not think the word “meticulously” is needed on line 118 and 199.

Response: Noted. The term "meticulously" has been removed from lines 118 and 199 for conciseness.

• Comment 5: I wondered how the study was examining UHI “across various scales and climates”? — as the focus was in one Mediterranean city, on one day?

Response: Recognizing the need for clarification, we have explicitly stated the study's focus on a specific the Mediterranean city “Annaba” on a sunny summer day. Which is already specified in the introduction and enhanced based on reviewer’s 4 comments. Please see the added text to the introduction section (line 122).

• Comment 6: As a reader I was confused by “targeting the Mediterranean climate” and then the following sentence line 125 stating that there was “expansion beyond the Mediterranean climatic boundaries?” The intent of the research should be clearly stated for the reader.

Response: Your point is well-taken. We have rephrased sentences to provide a clearer communication of the research focus and its expansion beyond Mediterranean boundaries. Specifically, by "expansion beyond the Mediterranean climatic boundaries," we mean that our study now includes the Mediterranean climate. This expansion encompasses not only arid and semi-arid climates but also extends to exploring the impact of urban heat islands in different climatic conditions, such as the Mediterranean climate represented by Annaba city located in Algeria.

• Comment 7: As a reader, I was eager to learn why data were only gathered during one day, and what limitations this may present in this study? I was not sure how these methods relate back to the commitments made in the introduction stated above (e.g. various scales and climates)? How does this compare to other UHI research studies? What makes this study novel, what gap does it fill? I was also eager to learn why the data and comparisons were not made for a full 24-hour period — as the UHI is often predominant throughout the night.

Response: Your inquiries have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

-The microclimate data were, in fact, gathered over multiple days in July and August of summer 2023. The selected day for analysis July 6^th, 2023 was chosen deliberately as it represented optimal conditions for our study, including full sun exposure and maximum heat stress. Furthermore, the investigation day was complemented by thermal imaging, aligning with our study aims and providing robust investigation support. Any limitations that may arise are duly acknowledged and discussed in a dedicated section at the end of the study, highlighted in red for clarity. See line 699.

-We acknowledge an oversight in stating that our study aims to investigate the Urban Heat Island (UHI) phenomenon across various scales and climates. We appreciate your keen observation, and we propose removing the sentence "various scales and climates" from the manuscript to accurately reflect the scope of our study. See line 119.

-Our research focuses on the microscale dynamics of UHI, emphasizing the impact of local factors on the thermal environment and the well-being of city residents. This microscale approach provides detailed insights often overlooked in broader-scale studies. Additionally, by integrating microscale insights, we aim to inform larger interventions, making our research a valuable resource for urban planners, policymakers, and stakeholders working to enhance thermal comfort and overall livability in cities.

-In addition to the points emphasized in the previous answer, our study addresses the specific problem of UHI in a Mediterranean city, adding a novel dimension to existing literature.

-The study area primarily functions in the daytime, especially as a commercial area. Therefore, data collection focused on active hours, ensuring that the collected data are representative of typical activities and conditions during the location's active periods.

• Comment 8: I was eager to learn more about how the microclimatic data were gathered specifically – How were the instruments mounted? At what height and location? What meteorological station were the measurements in the rural settings gathered from? What specific measurements were obtained from there (e.g., I imagine that MRT is not gathered at the meteorological station?). How were these measurements then modelled to compare to those gathered in the urban areas, as I assume data were collected at different heights in these two locations? How were MRT data gathered specifically? Were they modelled on gathered using another instrument? How was the thermal imaging conducted? Were all data collected under clear, unobstructed skies? This information is critical for readers and researchers to situate, contextualize and learn from your methodology. I’d also recommend including citations that helped inform your research methodology. The instruments used to collect air temperature and humidity data do not have strong accuracy relative to similar UHI studies.

Response: Thank you for your detailed review and valuable comments. I appreciate the opportunity to address your queries and provide further clarification on our methodology.

-The air temperature and relative humidity instruments were mounted at the same height (1.5 m) in both locations, P1 and P2. Additionally, wind speed was measured at 2.2 m. The instruments were positioned on a white support to neutralize measurement reading, ensuring accurate and unbiased data collection.

- The provided reference measurements for air temperature, relative humidity, and wind velocity were obtained from the airport meteorological station, located 15.4 km from downtown. The station is situated in a flat expanse with short grass, devoid of trees, buildings, walls, or steep slopes.

-All data were collected under suitable conditions with a clear sky, high sun exposure, and maximum thermal heat stress, ensuring the reliability of the measurements.

-Mean Radiant Temperature (MRT) was obtained by simulating microclimate conditions (temperature, humidity, and wind speed) using Envi-met. This scientific step was executed after validating the microclimate model to ensure accuracy and reliability.

These details are added to the manuscript text. Please observe the red writing in section “on-site measurements”.

-As explained in the methodology section, the thermal imaging was conducted simultaneously with on-site measurements, within a defined time framework. Please see paragraph starting from line 194. The focus was on capturing five objects from different angles, as explained in Table 2 and detailed in the paragraph starting from line 277.

-The instrument used for air temperature and humidity data collection were chosen based on availability, with acceptable accuracy and reliability. Rigorous calibration procedures were implemented before data collection, and periodic checks and recalibrations were conducted throughout the study to maintain instrument precision and mitigate potential drift or measurement errors. We have also incorporated additional references to reinforce our methodology as recommended.

• Comment 9: In general, I was eager to learn more about how the methodology section built upon other studies which evaluated the UHI — there are many out there to compare and draw upon.

Response: I have enriched the methodology section by drawing upon relevant studies to provide a more comprehensive foundation for the research approach. See methodology section!

• Comment 10: Line 228 there is a typo “bellow” and “figure 5” should be in brackets. line 231

Response: I appreciate your keen eye. Typos and formatting issues have been corrected at the specified locations; line 256 “below (Figure 5)”.

• Comment 11: should this read “12 p.m.?, also on line 282 and 478

Response: In line 259, 309 and 525 we mean “12 p.m.”

• Comment 12: The UHI is a well-researched phenomenon; I recommend a much richer discussion grounded in previous research. What is novel about the present study, and what does it offer for researchers, planners and designers moving forward? What do you want all readers to take away from this research? What are its limitations and how does it illuminate further research questions?

Response: Your feedback has been incorporated into an enhanced discussion section that delves deeper into previous research, articulating the novelty of the present study and outlining its implications for various stakeholders. Please see Discussion section.

We hope these responses address your concerns adequately. We appreciate your time and expertise in reviewing our manuscript and believe that the revisions enhance the overall quality and clarity of our research.

The revised version of the manuscript is attached for your perusal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report (1)

Journal: Energies Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2796393

Type: Article

Title:  Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies.

 

Summary: This work deals with the investigation of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) phenomenon at the microscale in Annaba, Algeria, focusing on the impact of climate change on cities. The study involves on-site measurements of urban microclimate parameters, thermal imaging, and the use of the ENVI-met model to analyze mitigation strategies. The findings reveal an intense UHI effect in Annaba, with urban vegetation, especially trees and green roofs, proving highly effective in mitigating temperature increases.

 

Comments

• The study focuses on a single city in Algeria, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other urban contexts. While the chosen climate (Mediterranean) adds diversity, further research in different regions and climates would be necessary for broader application.
• While the results provide a good overview of UHI phenomenon in Annaba, a deeper analysis of the data could be explored. This could involve statistical analysis of the temperature data, correlation analysis between contributing factors and UHI intensity, and a more nuanced discussion of the limitations of the chosen models and simulations.
• The research could be strengthened by providing more specific and actionable recommendations for UHI mitigation in Annaba and similar Mediterranean cities. This could involve concrete guidelines for urban planning, building design, and vegetation integration based on the identified contributing factors and the simulation results.

Overall:

This research presents a valuable contribution to the understanding of UHI phenomenon in the Mediterranean climate. The study benefits from its comprehensive methodology and clear presentation of results. However, it would benefit from further analysis, consideration of generalizability, and more specific recommendations for practical applications.

So I recommend a Major Revision

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Report in Corrections Made in Response to Reviewer Comments

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2796393

Type: Article

Title:  Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies.

I am grateful for the insightful feedback you provided on my manuscript titled " Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies "submitted to the Special Issue "Urban Overheating in a Context of Climate Change: Measurements, Modeling, Thermal Comfort and Adaptation Strategies" in Sustainability Journal by MDPI. Your constructive comments have been immensely helpful, and we have diligently addressed each of your suggestions to enhance the quality and clarity of the paper.

• Comment 1: The study focuses on a single city in Algeria, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other urban contexts. While the chosen climate (Mediterranean) adds diversity, further research in different regions and climates would be necessary for broader application.

Response: we appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment regarding the limited generalizability of our findings. To address this concern, we acknowledge the necessity for broader applicability and intend to extend our research scope by considering additional urban contexts with diverse climates.

• Comment 2: While the results provide a good overview of the UHI phenomenon in Annaba, a deeper analysis of the data could be explored. This could involve statistical analysis of the temperature data, correlation analysis between contributing factors and UHI intensity, and a more nuanced discussion of the limitations of the chosen models and simulations.

Response: we appreciate the suggestion to delve deeper into the data analysis. In response, we suggest conducting future studies treating additional statistical and correlation analyses to provide a more robust understanding of the relationship between contributing factors and UHI intensity. Furthermore, we will enhance the discussion section to address the limitations of our models and simulations in a more nuanced manner. Please see section “4.3. Study limitations and future perspectives”

• Comment 3: The research could be strengthened by providing more specific and actionable recommendations for UHI mitigation in Annaba and similar Mediterranean cities. This could involve concrete guidelines for urban planning, building design, and vegetation integration based on the identified contributing factors and the simulation results.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the need for more specific recommendations. We propose more accurate studies to by incorporating concrete guidelines for UHI mitigation in Annaba and similar Mediterranean cities. This will involve a detailed analysis of identified contributing factors and simulation results to provide actionable suggestions for urban planning, building design, and vegetation integration.

• Overall Recommendation: Major Revision.

This research presents a valuable contribution to the understanding of the UHI phenomenon in the Mediterranean climate. The study benefits from its comprehensive methodology and clear presentation of results. However, it would benefit from further analysis, consideration of generalizability, and more specific recommendations for practical applications.

Response: We appreciate the overall positive assessment of our work and acknowledge the need for further refinement. In response to your comments, we suggest incorporating a dedicated section for further studies at the end of the article. “4.3. Study limitations and future perspectives” this section outlines potential avenues for future research, including the expansion of our study to different urban contexts and climates, a more in-depth analysis of data, and the development of specific guidelines for UHI mitigation strategies.

• Comments on the Quality of English Language: Extensive editing of English language required.

Response: We appreciate the feedback on the language quality. To address this, we performed extensive editing to ensure that the manuscript meets the highest standards of clarity and coherence in English.

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback, and we believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall quality and coherence of the manuscript.

Please find the revised manuscript attached for your perusal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research content of this article is interesting and meaningful，but it needs to be improved in the following:

 

- This paper has no clear research goals and objects.

-Line 123-125 “By deliberately targeting the Mediterranean climate, characterized by distinct…factors to its initiation and develop context-specific mitigation strategies.”

are very confusing and this paragraph needs to be rephrased Very confusing, this paragraph needs to be rephrased. 

Method section:

-Although some factors affecting heat island intensity are explained in the first natural paragraph, there is no explanation in the methods section as to why these factors were selected for this area.

-In addition, the relationship between “strategy” and” parameters” needs further explanation.

Result section:

- The fitting method was used in fugure6, and there were too few points on the graph.

- For 3.3.2, does it make sense to do this without controlling the variables?

-The author needs to make the policy-level and macro-level implications clear and justifiable.

Author Response

Report in Corrections Made in Response to Reviewer Comments

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2796393

Type: Article

Title:  Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies.

I am grateful for the insightful feedback you provided on my manuscript titled " Microscale Investigation of Urban Heat Island (UHI) in Annaba City: Unveiling Factors and Mitigation Strategies "submitted to the Special Issue "Urban Overheating in a Context of Climate Change: Measurements, Modeling, Thermal Comfort and Adaptation Strategies" in Sustainability Journal by MDPI. Your constructive comments have been immensely helpful, and we have diligently addressed each of your suggestions to enhance the quality and clarity of the paper.

• Comment 1: This paper has no clear research goals and objects.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. To address this concern, we have revised the introduction section to explicitly state the research goals and objectives, providing a clearer framework for the study. Please see the paragraph starting from 118.

• Comment 2: "Line 123-125 'By deliberately targeting the Mediterranean climate, characterized by distinct…factors to its initiation and develop context-specific mitigation strategies.' are very confusing, and this paragraph needs to be rephrased."

Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have carefully rephrased the paragraph in question (Lines 123-125) to enhance clarity and coherence, ensuring that the study focus is presented more lucidly.

• Comment 3: "Method section: Although some factors affecting heat island intensity are explained in the first natural paragraph, there is no explanation in the methods section as to why these factors were selected for this area. In addition, the relationship between 'strategy' and 'parameters' needs further explanation."

Response: In response to these insightful comments, we have provided additional clarification in the methods section regarding the rationale for selecting specific factors influencing heat island intensity in the identified area. Additionally, we have elaborated on the relationship between "strategy" and "parameters" for better understanding.

1. Mitigation Strategies: The study is focused on examining strategies to mitigate environmental conditions. These strategies could involve measures to address issues like high temperatures, radiant heat, humidity, and wind speed.
2. Parameters: Within the context of the ENVI-met model, parameters refer to the variables that can be adjusted to represent different aspects of the environment. In this case, parameters such as building heights, materials, and vegetation distribution are manipulated to simulate various scenarios representing different mitigation strategies.

Please see paragraph starting from line 165.

• Comment 4: "Result section: The fitting method was used in figure 6, and there were too few points on the graph. For 3.3.2, does it make sense to do this without controlling the variables?"

Response: We appreciate your keen observation. The fitting method employed in Figure 6 serves a specific purpose in our study. It is utilized to validate the adequacy of our microclimate model and to ensure the robustness of subsequent analyses and interpretations. The decision to include a limited number of points on the graph is intentional and aligns with our validation strategy. By performing this validation in the two measurement locations, we aim to reinforce the validity of our microclimate model. This approach allows us to assess how well the model generalizes to different scenarios and locations, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of its performance.

• Comment 5: The author needs to make the policy-level and macro-level implications clear and justifiable.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this aspect. We have expanded the discussion in the discussion section to provide a more explicit and justified presentation of policy-level and macro-level implications arising from the study's findings. Please see the added section “4.3. Study limitations and future perspectives”

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback, and we believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened the overall quality and coherence of the manuscript.

Please find the revised manuscript attached for your perusal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revision. It can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback and acceptance for publication. We appreciate your guidance and will ensure any necessary revisions are promptly addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have sufficiently addressed all comments. I would still have liked to have seen a stronger connection to the research findings as they relate back to past scholarly research in sections 4.1 and 4.2, as this would help further contextualize the research results. However, sufficient scholarly research is highlighted in section 4.3.

One minor revision - section "4.2. Mitigation strategies and action plans" should read section "4.3 Mitigations strategies and action plans".

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your thorough review and are pleased to hear that you found that we have adequately addressed all comments.

Regarding your suggestion for a stronger connection to past scholarly research in sections 4.1 and 4.2, we acknowledge the importance of contextualizing our research findings within the broader scholarly landscape. In our revised manuscript, we tried best to enhance the discussion in these sections by providing a more explicit link to relevant past research (Please see new references in thick blue character!). We believe that this addition will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the research results.

Additionally, we have noted your suggestion for the correction in section labeling. The section "4.2. Mitigation strategies and action plans" will be appropriately revised to "4.3 Mitigation strategies and action plans" in the final version of the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments, which have undoubtedly improved the overall quality of our work. We look forward to incorporating these revisions to meet your expectations fully.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

We are delighted to receive your approval for the manuscript in its current form. We reviewed the comments on the quality of English language and promptly make the necessary moderate edits to enhance the overall readability.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your carful revisions. The manuscript has been improved and much better than before. 

Author Response

We appreciate your acknowledgment of the careful revisions made to the manuscript. Your feedback is valuable, and we are committed to maintaining the improved quality.