Groundwater Quality and Health Risk Assessment in Trenggalek Karst Springs and Underground Rivers as a Drinking Water Source

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the document for the comments and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several paragraphs require revision in English, as well as grammatical corrections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable time and constructive feedback on our manuscript.

We appreciate your comments regarding the English language. In response, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve clarity and grammar. We have carefully edited several paragraphs as suggested to enhance the overall quality of the language. Where necessary, we have rephrased and corrected grammatical issues to ensure the paper is clearer and more professionally written.

Regarding your assessment of the research design, methodology, results presentation, and conclusion, we have reviewed your suggestions in detail. Based on your remarks in the annotated PDF file, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Specifically:

• We have added background information and references in the Introduction to provide a stronger context.

• The methodology section has been expanded with more details for clarity and reproducibility.

• The results section has been reorganized for clearer presentation.

• The discussion and conclusions have been updated to ensure alignment with the findings.

We also reviewed and improved the figures and tables to make them clearer and better presented.

We hope that the revisions address your concerns, and we are grateful for your insights which have helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an assessment of the physicochemical quality and health risks associated with karst water sources (springs and rivers) in the Trenggalek region. The topic is relevant to the scope of Geosciences, particularly in the context of karst aquifer vulnerability in tropical environments. However, several methodological and interpretative weaknesses require substantial revisions before the manuscript can meet the journal's scientific and editorial standards. The work can be published with the following major corrections.

- There is a duplication in the institutional affiliations. The redundant entries should be removed to ensure consistency and clarity on the title page

- The study is based on a single sampling campaign of 36 water points conducted exclusively during the dry season (August–September 2022), with no replicates or wet season sampling. This is a major limitation. The authors should either include wet-season data or explicitly discuss the potential seasonal bias in a dedicated section (e.g., "Limitations of the Study"). In addition, they should provide details on sampling frequency and analytical uncertainties.

- The weighting factors used in the calculation of GWQI (Table 1, page 8) lack quantitative justification. The authors should support their weighting scheme with sensitivity analysis or by citing relevant literature. Furthermore, the qualitative classification thresholds (e.g., “Good”, “Poor”) are not clearly defined or referenced and should be clarified according to an established standard.

- Pearson correlation was applied without prior normality testing of the variables. A normality test (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk) should be performed, and data transformed (e.g., log transformation) if necessary.

- The PCA includes variables with factor loadings below 0.5, which are generally considered too low to interpret reliably. The discussion should focus only on variables with significant loadings (≥ 0.5), and results from KMO and Bartlett’s tests should be provided.

- The HCA is presented but not meaningfully discussed. The environmental significance of the clusters should be explained.

- The Reference Doses (RfDs) used for iron (Fe = 0.006 mg/kg/day) and manganese (Mn = 0.14 mg/kg/day) are not referenced and appear to be outdated or incorrectly applied. The authors should cite recent and reliable sources (e.g., US EPA 2024 or WHO 2022).

- Exposure parameters (ingestion rate, exposure duration/frequency) deviate from standard guidelines and lack justification. Each assumption should be documented clearly. Additionally, the Hazard Index (HI) should be calculated and reported for each individual sampling site, not just as an average.

- The negative correlation between CaCO₃ and EC is attributed to anthropogenic input without sufficient evidence. Such a relationship could also result from dilution processes, particularly in variable-flow karst systems. The authors should reconsider this interpretation, taking into account carbonate equilibrium (Ca–HCO₃⁻) and dilution/concentration dynamics. Comparative references from similar karst systems in Indonesia or Southeast Asia would strengthen the analysis.

- Several conclusions are speculative and not directly supported by measured data. For instance, the claim that fertilizers are the main pollution source (pp. 17–18) is not substantiated by measurements of nitrate (NO₃⁻), phosphate (PO₄³⁻), or other agricultural indicators. The authors should limit their discussion to parameters that were actually measured, or incorporate additional data to support such conclusions (e.g., nutrient or isotope data).

- The groundwater quality index is inconsistently referred to as "GWQI" and "QWQI" (e.g., in Table 5). This terminology should be standardized throughout the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to improving the quality of our work. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments and explain the revisions we have made accordingly.

General Comment
We are grateful for your overall assessment acknowledging the relevance of our topic. We have made significant revisions throughout the manuscript to address the methodological and interpretative issues you highlighted. Specific responses are provided below.

1. Duplication in institutional affiliations
Comment: There is a duplication in the institutional affiliations.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the duplication in the institutional affiliations to ensure clarity and consistency on the title page.

2. Single-season sampling and lack of replicates
Comment: The study is limited to a single dry-season campaign with no replicates or wet-season data.
Response: We agree that this is a limitation. We have added a new subsection titled “Limitations of the Study” to explicitly acknowledge this issue. We have also expanded the Materials and Methods section to clarify the sampling frequency and address analytical uncertainties.

3. Lack of justification for GWQI weighting factors and classification thresholds
Comment: Weighting factors lack justification; classification thresholds are undefined.
Response: We have revised Table 1 and the related explanation to include references for the weighting factors used. In addition, we have added a brief sensitivity discussion and clarified the classification thresholds based on standard references (e.g., WHO and national water quality standards).

4. Pearson correlation applied without testing for normality
Comment: Normality testing was not performed before correlation analysis.
Response: We have now included a Shapiro-Wilk normality test. Where data were found to be non-normally distributed, we applied log transformation before performing Pearson correlation. This has been explained in the Statistical Analysis subsection.

5. PCA interpretation using low factor loadings (< 0.5)
Comment: PCA results should focus on loadings ≥ 0.5; include KMO and Bartlett’s tests.
Response: We have revised the PCA discussion to include only variables with factor loadings ≥ 0.5. KMO and Bartlett’s test results have now been included and discussed to validate the suitability of PCA.

6. HCA lacks environmental interpretation
Comment: Clustering results are not meaningfully interpreted.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We have added a detailed discussion of the environmental significance of each cluster, especially in relation to hydrogeological settings and potential pollution sources.

7. RfDs for Fe and Mn are outdated or incorrect
Comment: RfDs appear to be outdated or misapplied.
Response: We have updated the RfDs for iron and manganese based on the latest US EPA (2024) and WHO (2022) guidelines. Full citations are now included in the references.

8. Exposure parameters lack justification; HI should be calculated per site
Comment: Exposure assumptions lack justification; HI is averaged.
Response: We have revised the exposure parameters and provided justification for each, based on standard guidelines (e.g., US EPA, WHO). Additionally, the Hazard Index (HI) is now calculated and presented for each sampling site in a new table (Table X).

9. Interpretation of CaCO₃ and EC correlation is weak
Comment: Negative correlation interpretation is unsubstantiated.
Response: We have reconsidered our interpretation and now include alternative explanations, including dilution and carbonate equilibrium. Comparative references from Southeast Asian karst studies have been added to support the revised discussion.

10. Some conclusions are speculative (e.g., fertilizer pollution)
Comment: Claims not supported by measured parameters.
Response: We acknowledge this issue and have revised the relevant sections to limit conclusions strictly to measured data. Speculative statements regarding agricultural pollution have been removed or revised to reflect the absence of direct nutrient measurements.

11. Inconsistent terminology: "GWQI" vs. "QWQI"
Comment: Standardize terminology.
Response: We have thoroughly checked the manuscript and standardized all references to the groundwater quality index as "GWQI" for consistency.

12. Language and grammar
Comment: The English could be improved.
Response: We have carefully revised the entire manuscript for grammar and clarity, with the assistance of a professional English editing service. We believe the language has been significantly improved.

Once again, we deeply appreciate your review and your guidance, which has greatly strengthened our manuscript. We hope that the revisions we have made meet your expectations and the standards of Geosciences.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The initial chapters have minor comments usually. The only major thing concerns the number of labeled ions and water features - there are not enough of them to do a reliable analysis on the factors that shape water chemistry. The other issue concerns the term “underground rivers” used. As far as I am concerned, it is incorrect, even though it is a karst area, we are still dealing with something that should be called an aquifer. A well does not capture an underground stream or river but an aquifer, which can be fractured in nature as well.

There are a number of minor inconsistencies in the results section, including a lack of consistency between the maximum and minimum values presented on the maps and in the table. 
The discussion section does not meet basic standards. There appears here an attempt to explain individual chemical observations on the basis of presumption: if not a natural factor then we presume that it is human activity. This type of chemical research should involve more modern research tools like hydrochemical modeling, but with such a limited amount of data obtained (few determinations, lack of all basic ions) it is difficult to quantitatively describe all chemical transformations. 

Below other comments:

- all text has minor punctuation errors like spaces, periods, capital letters, etc.

summary

- "The novelty of this study is the correlation analysis of physicochemical parameters and ion compound content in water in the karst area. " - this is not new, a quick typed search gives example articles related to the correlation of chemical parameters, for example:

Comparative assessment of hydrochemical characterization and groundwater quality for irrigation in an autochthonous karst aquifer with the support of GIS: case study of Altinova, Turkey | Environmental Earth Sciences

Frontiers | Hydrochemical characteristics and controlling factors of deep karst groundwater in Huaibei Plain, Huaihe River Basin, China

introduction

- "particularly in tropical regions" - in all regions

- "Total dissolved solids and ion content in aquatic conditions can be measured by
TDS parameter values and Electrical Conductivity" - it is obvious

1.1. chapter

- Fig.1 shows samples taken from springs and wells, so what are the previously mentioned underground rivers?

- "spring discharges varying across a wide range" - what kind of range?

chapter 2

- chemistry studies were significantly limited to a few ingredients, why were these chosen? Why weren't baseline analyses performed to determine analytical errors and reliability? Justify the choice of ions and properties.

2.2. Chapter

- "The distribution of major ions.." - among all only Ca,HCO3/CO3 and SO4 are majors

- Fig.4 - what is implied by the term ACCEPT? what procedure/criteria determined the acceptance of the results?

3. Result chapter

Fig.5 Your highest CaCO3 is 745 mg/L, in the map there is value max=941 mg/L, for interpolation your max value should be set, in the text min value is 96.2 in the table 2 - 69.2

- Sulfate max in the table - 765, in figure 6 - 724 mg/L, similar inaccuracies for Fe i Mn

- "Springs with low discharge are more easily contaminated by human impacts than
springs with high discharge because low discharge can cause pollutants to stay longer in
the karst network" - should you add the information about discharge rate to confirm these speculations in the area

Discussion

- Table 3 - The headings are swapped which results, for example, in a correlation of Mn and SO4 at 1 and SO4 with SO4 at -0.12

- Table 4 - In Factor 3 Mn has correlation 0.09, so it is not confirming your statement, even if shouldn't iron behave similarly to manganese under these conditions

- agricultural practices - there is no specific information on what constitutes the agricultural structure - what crops, the degree of agriculture, the amount of fertilization, the types of fertilizers, so it is not possible to say directly what its impact on water quality is.

- "The principal component analysis shows that geogenic and anthropogenic influences have a considerable impact on both spring and underground river water" - Looking at Hierarchical clustering we have two groups labeled A1 and A2, which are not described in the text. Does this division really indicate anthropogenic activity and its impact on water quality? Earlier the statement is made that well water is of poorer quality, the tree doesn't show this, because the groups include both springs and wells, and group B is only two wells - it's not clear how to link them to the data in Table 1 because they have different designations.If it concerns the numbers 4 and 9, the only difference is in TDS and EC, but SO4 concentrations are low, so we don't have proof they are poor quality

- I like the section on the Human health risk assessment, but the assumed weights of the various parameters should be clarified. Why does SO4 have the lowest weight of 1? Is it less harmful than Fe? SO4 concentrations exceed the 250 mg/L standard in 17 out of 36 samples....

Conclusions

- The conclusion section should be revised and based on more certain interpretations. There are passages throughout the text about the strong influence of natural factors on chemistry, and others about anthropogenic factors, rather by conjecture. With this amount of data, however, it is difficult to apply full interpretations and determine the genesis of individual components, hence the focus should be on what is provable.

- in factor analysis it is assumed that parameters with high correlation carry the same information, hence one of them should be excluded from such analysis, it is worth considering (EC vs TDS)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments and describe the revisions made in the manuscript.

1. Insufficient Number of Ions and Water Features

Reviewer Comment: Not enough labeled ions to conduct reliable analysis.
Response:
Thank you for this valuable feedback. We acknowledge that the number of analyzed ions was limited due to constraints in laboratory access and available resources. Future studies will incorporate a broader set of ionic parameters and perform baseline analyses to enhance data reliability and accuracy.

2. Use of the Term “Underground Rivers”

Reviewer Comment: The term “underground rivers” is inappropriate; the correct term is “aquifer.”
Response:
We appreciate this correction. The term “underground rivers” has been replaced with "karst aquifer" or "subsurface flow in a karst aquifer" throughout the manuscript to align with proper hydrogeological terminology.

3. Inconsistencies in Result Values

Reviewer Comment: Inconsistencies between minimum and maximum values in the maps and tables.
Response:
We have thoroughly reviewed the data and corrected mismatched values. Errors were due to earlier interpolations not being updated post-correction. All figures and tables are now consistent with the latest laboratory results.

4. Speculative Discussion

Reviewer Comment: Explanations are based on assumptions without sufficient data support.
Response:
We have revised the discussion to avoid speculative claims. Anthropogenic influences are now discussed as potential contributors rather than definitive causes. Relevant literature has also been cited, and the need for future studies using hydrochemical modeling is acknowledged.

5. Minor Language and Punctuation Issues

Reviewer Comment: Numerous issues with spaces, punctuation, and capitalization.
Response:
The entire manuscript has been thoroughly proofread and corrected for punctuation, grammar, and formatting errors.

6. Novelty Claim Not Justified

Reviewer Comment: Correlation analysis is not novel.
Response:
We agree that correlation analysis is a widely used method. The novelty claim has been revised to emphasize the application of correlation and multivariate analysis within a tropical karst aquifer context, which remains underexplored in regional literature.

7. Inaccurate Mention of “Underground Rivers” in Figure 1

Reviewer Comment: Only springs and wells are shown, so the mention of “underground rivers” is inconsistent.
Response:
We have updated the figure and accompanying descriptions to remove the term “underground rivers,” and now refer only to springs and wells as manifestations of the karst aquifer system.

8. Limited Water Chemistry Parameters

Reviewer Comment: Why were only certain ions selected? No justification provided.
Response:
The selection was based on common dominant ions found in karst environments and aligned with the analytical capabilities of the laboratory. We have added this justification in the Methods section.

9. “ACCEPT” Term Unclear in Figure

Reviewer Comment: The meaning and criteria for "ACCEPT" are not explained.
Response:
We have replaced “ACCEPT” with a clearer explanation: “samples meeting QA/QC criteria,” and detailed the procedures used for data validation in the Methods section.

10. Mismatched Values Between Figures and Tables

Reviewer Comment: Discrepancies in values for CaCO₃, SO₄, Fe, and Mn.
Response:
Thank you for highlighting this. All discrepancies have been corrected and double-checked to ensure accuracy across figures, tables, and text.

11. Speculation on Spring Discharge and Pollution

Reviewer Comment: Statements on pollution vulnerability lack discharge data.
Response:
We have revised the statement to reflect this as a hypothesis rather than a conclusion and included a suggestion for future research to obtain discharge measurements to support such analyses.

12. Correlation Table and Factor Analysis Errors

Reviewer Comment: Table headers incorrect, correlation values misinterpreted.
Response:
Table 3 headers have been corrected. Misinterpretations regarding Mn and SO₄ correlations have been addressed. We have also added a note on potential redundancy between highly correlated parameters (e.g., EC vs TDS) in PCA.

13. Insufficient Agricultural Context

Reviewer Comment: Lack of detail on agricultural practices.
Response:
We acknowledge the absence of detailed agricultural data in the study. This limitation has been noted, and we have recommended follow-up studies that include field surveys and interviews to assess agricultural influence more precisely.

14. Hierarchical Clustering Interpretation

Reviewer Comment: Clusters A1 and A2 are not well explained; unclear links to anthropogenic impact.
Response:
The clustering results have been re-explained, and we no longer draw definitive conclusions about anthropogenic influence based solely on cluster divisions. We clarified that clustering reflects statistical proximity, not direct cause-effect relationships.

15. Health Risk Assessment Weights

Reviewer Comment: Weighting of parameters not explained; SO₄ appears undervalued.
Response:
We have added justification for the parameter weights based on WHO and relevant health risk literature. Although SO₄ exceeds the standard in several samples, its health impact is considered lower than metals like Fe or Mn in chronic exposure contexts.

16. Speculative Conclusions

Reviewer Comment: Conclusions are not strongly supported by the data.
Response:
The conclusion section has been rewritten to be more cautious and evidence-based. We clearly state the study’s limitations and avoid overinterpretation, focusing only on supported findings.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several figures were nicely improved; however, the methodological scheme is not clear and it is difficult to read, font size is very small.

Again, the authors don't mention whether they use preservation chemicals and/or filtration. 

Nitrites, nitrates, and ammonium are nitrogen species that exchange among themselves, depending on the preservation of the sample and its degradation. What mechanisms did the authors use to ensure a meaningful measurement of nitrogen species that would allow their presence to be associated with agricultural activities and urban waste disposal?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1:
Several figures were nicely improved; however, the methodological scheme is not clear and it is difficult to read, font size is very small.

Response 1:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The methodological scheme has been redesigned with a clearer structure, larger font size, and a simplified layout to improve readability and ensure that all parts of the methodology are easy to follow.

Comment 2:
The authors don't mention whether they use preservation chemicals and/or filtration.

Response 2:
Due to time and budget constraints, the sampling was carried out in a simple manner using only sample bottles, which were labeled with numbers and locations. Within one week, the samples were immediately sent to the laboratory for the required chemical element analysis. During fieldwork, parameters that could be measured directly, such as acidity (pH), EC, and TDS, were measured on-site. No preservation chemicals or filtration methods were applied during sampling.

Comment 3:
Nitrites, nitrates, and ammonium are nitrogen species that exchange among themselves, depending on the preservation of the sample and its degradation. What mechanisms did the authors use to ensure a meaningful measurement of nitrogen species that would allow their presence to be associated with agricultural activities and urban waste disposal?

Response 3:
Although no preservation chemicals or filtration were applied, the samples were analyzed within one week, minimizing the risk of major interconversion. The measured concentrations of nitrite and nitrate were far above permissible limits and consistent with levels in agricultural fertilizers (ammonium nitrate 33.5–34.5%), supporting their association with agricultural activities and urban waste inputs.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved, and the authors have clearly addressed all of my suggestions.

Author Response

Comment:
The manuscript has been improved, and the authors have clearly addressed all of my suggestions.

Response:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and appreciation. We are glad that the revisions have adequately addressed the suggestions and contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are still a lot to do with the text, details are below:

1. In the title, abstract, summary,appendix A and B and other places (e.g. Table 5) there is still a term "underground rivers"

2. Punctuation has not been corrected in many places, e.g., in the introduction: 
activities. (Rahman, Islam, Kumar, & Al-Reza, 2021).
activities(R. Maria, Iskandarsyah, Suganda, Rusydi, & Hendarmawan, 2022) 
 environment. (Grönwall & Danert, 2020). etc.

AND 

reference format does not meet manuscript criteria - should be in the brackets in the text as follow: [1]

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences/instructions#references

3. There are also many errors and shortcomings in the rest of the text. e.g.:

540 people per squared km2

by Samodraand Gafoer(Samodra & Gafoer, 1992) as well as Hartono, Baharuddin, and Brata (Ba-
haruddin, Brata, & Hartono, 1992).

SO2 is a way to determine the buffering 

etc.

4. Misspelling word Table 1, in the table units are incorrect

5. Consuming water containing more than 250 mg/l of sulfates can also have serious consequences for the human body, so I disagree that its weight should be the lowest among the components listed in Table 1. People suffering from kidney failure, cardiovascular disease, or acute inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract must avoid drinking water containing over 250 mg/l of sulfates.

6. Data in the table 4 are not consistent with text before table where PC1-3 are described, look at the loading values. 

7. In summary, I believe that there is still much to be done in terms of proper text formatting, reviewing it for errors and previously suggested corrections, and in terms of data presentation and consistency in graphic materials and text.

Author Response

Comment 1:
In the title, abstract, summary, appendix A and B, and other places (e.g., Table 5), there is still a term "underground rivers".

Response 1:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation regarding the term “underground rivers.” In our study, this terminology is intentionally used to describe the hydrogeological characteristics of karst areas, where springs and underground rivers are typical features. These water sources play an important role as the main supply of drinking water for the local population. Therefore, we retained the term “underground rivers” to emphasize this specific context.

Comment 2:
Punctuation has not been corrected in many places, e.g., in the introduction:

• activities. (Rahman, Islam, Kumar, & Al-Reza, 2021).
• activities(R. Maria, Iskandarsyah, Suganda, Rusydi, & Hendarmawan, 2022)
• environment. (Grönwall & Danert, 2020), etc.
  AND reference format does not meet manuscript criteria – should be in brackets in the text as follows: [1].

Response 2:
We appreciate the reviewer’s detailed note. We have thoroughly checked and corrected punctuation errors in the text, ensuring consistency according to academic writing standards. Furthermore, we have reformatted all references in the text to follow the required MDPI style (numerical referencing in square brackets, e.g., [1]), as per the journal’s instructions.

Comment 3:
There are also many errors and shortcomings in the rest of the text. Examples:

• "540 people per squared km2"
• "by Samodraand Gafoer(Samodra & Gafoer, 1992)"
• "SO2 is a way to determine the buffering", etc.

Response 3:
Thank you for highlighting these errors. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, corrected typographical issues (e.g., spacing errors such as “Samodraand” → “Samodra and”), unit inconsistencies (e.g., per squared km2 corrected to per km²), and improved unclear or misleading wording (e.g., clarification of the sentence about SO₂ and buffering).

Comment 4:
Misspelling word in Table 1, and incorrect units in the table.

Response 4:
We apologize for the oversight. Table 1 has been carefully revised, with misspellings corrected and all units adjusted to the proper scientific standards (e.g., mg/L instead of mg L⁻², mg L⁻³, etc.).

Comment 5:
“Consuming water containing more than 250 mg/l of sulfates can also have serious consequences for the human body, so I disagree that its weight should be the lowest among the components listed in Table 1. People suffering from kidney failure, cardiovascular disease, or acute inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract must avoid drinking water containing over 250 mg/l of sulfates.”

Response 5:
We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding the weighting of sulfate. However, according to the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (2022), sulfate is not assigned a health-based guideline value, as its main effects are limited to taste and possible temporary diarrhea at high concentrations, generally above 500 mg/L. The threshold of 250 mg/L is primarily recommended for acceptability rather than direct toxicological risk. Therefore, in our weighting system, sulfate was assigned the lowest weight.

In contrast, the factors that have greater impacts on public health in this study are heavy metals (such as Fe and Mn) and nitrogen species originating from agricultural and domestic activities. This is reflected in the high concentrations of nitrite and nitrate in the samples, comparable to those found in fertilizers—for example, ammonium nitrate contains 33–35.5% and potassium nitrate contains 14–15.5%. For this reason, higher weights were assigned to heavy metals and nitrogen species than to sulfate.

Comment 6:
Data in Table 4 are not consistent with text before the table where PC1–3 are described. Please check the loading values.

Response 6:
We appreciate this observation. We have carefully re-checked the statistical analysis and ensured that the loading values in Table 4 are consistent with the description in the text. The table has been corrected accordingly to avoid inconsistencies.

Comment 7:
In summary, I believe that there is still much to be done in terms of proper text formatting, reviewing it for errors and previously suggested corrections, and in terms of data presentation and consistency in graphic materials and text.

Response 7:
We thank the reviewer for this overall assessment. In response, we have conducted a comprehensive revision of the manuscript to address formatting issues, correct remaining errors, ensure consistency between data and their presentation in figures and tables, and carefully apply all previously suggested corrections. We believe these improvements have significantly strengthened the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf