Effect of Polyurethane Non-Transparent Coating Process on Paint Film Performance Applied on Modified Poplar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear colleagues,
The article entitled “Effect of Polyurethane non-transparent coating process on paint film performance based on modified poplar” has research on the application and characterization of PU-coated modified poplar and its performance for furniture. The article is interesting and well-written, reading is fluid. Novelty is unclear, please verify it and reinforce it. Small but pertinent comments are detailed below.
Abstract
Which other surface finishing process exist to modify poplar and how is your approach better than those ones? You need to finish discussing future perspectives about your breakthrough.
Introduction
“but there is little research about non-transparent finishing processes based on modified poplar” -> I understand, but please elaborate a little bit to better showcase your achievements.
Results and discussion
Please change all letters to English in your figures and tables.
Conclusions
Similar as for the abstract section.
Author Response
Dear Editor
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Polyurethane non-transparent coating process on paint film performance applied on modified poplar” (ID: coatings-1509613). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Q1: Which other surface finishing process exist to modify poplar and how is your approach better than those ones? You need to finish discussing future perspectives about your breakthrough.
R: More information about modification and discussion about my breakthrough has been added into my manuscript, thank you.
Q2. “but there is little research about non-transparent finishing processes based on modified poplar” -> I understand, but please elaborate a little bit to better showcase your achievements.
R: This part has been revised and more information has been added into this section, thank you.
Q3. Please change all letters to English in your figures and tables.
R: All letters have been changed to English in all figures and tables, thank you.
Q4.Similar as for the abstract section.
R: More information and discussion has been added into Conclusions, thank you.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers ‘warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper reports on the “Effect of Polyurethane non-transparent coating process on paint film performance based on modified poplar”. Discussion and conclusion can be improve. Methodology and reference, results seems be corrected.
I have few comments to the manuscript:
- Page 2 line 54-61. Missing reference.
- Chapter 2.2. Must be improve.
- 1-3 – to supplementary.
- Page 4. A table should be placed after it is mentioned in the text, it should not be referenced so early in the text.
- 4 - not described.
- 1 – 2. Incomprehensible markings on the axles.
- 7 - not described.
- 3-4. Incomprehensible markings on the axles.
- Discussion is missing.
- Conclusion should be improve. Is to short. Adding potential used in industries.
Taking into account all comments the manuscript may be published in Coatings after major revision.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Polyurethane non-transparent coating process on paint film performance applied on modified poplar” (ID: coatings-1509613). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in blue in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Q1. Page 2 line 54-61. Missing reference.
R: References have been revised, thank you.
Q2. Chapter 2.2. Must be improve.
R: Chapter 2.2 has been improved, thank you.
Q3. 1-3 – to supplementary.
R: Related information has been revised, thank you.
Q4. Page 4. A table should be placed after it is mentioned in the text, it should not be referenced so early in the text.
R: All of these tables have been placed after they are mentioned in the text, thank you.
Q5. 4 - not described.
R: Related information has been revised, thank you.
Q6. 2. Incomprehensible markings on the axles.
R: The axles have been revised, thank you.
Q7. not described.
R: Related information has been revised, thank you.
Q8. 3-4. Incomprehensible markings on the axles.
R: The axles have been revised, thank you.
Q9. Discussion is missing.
R: Discussion has been revised, thank you.
Q10. Conclusion should be improve. Is to short. Adding potential used in industries.
R: Conclusion has been improved and potential used in industries has been added, thank you.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers ‘warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research is quite extensive, a multi-level hybrid orthogonal experiment method is set it up quite deep too, but there are some parts explained below to be considered.
The introduction starts with: »Non-transparent coatings process of European and American furniture is a kind of operation method characterized by full colour. This type of paint process is mainly based on polyurethane resin paint. After multiple spraying on the wood surface, the paint film formed is thick, plump and opaque. It is a commonly used method for surface finishing of European and American furniture.
I would not agree with these statements. The most common surface finishing of furniture in Europe (and most probably also in America) is finishing with transparent (mostly waterborne) coating systems. The use of opaque finish is for sure one way, but not the major one. It is mainly used for the surface finishing of fibre and chip boards (wood composites). Even in this case very often decorative foils or laminates are being used. The exception is the production of the elements for campers, holiday trailers where light elements are needed (light wood composites).
In addition, the references supporting author's statements are not appropriate ones since they do not origin from Europe or America.
Please redo this part of the introduction to be more in line with the current state of the art and with more relevant references.
Line 57 and 58 “There are still many technical problems that need to be solved.« Please name them and add references. I presume that the main drawback of the use of poplar wood for furniture production is the lack of sufficient mechanical properties of the substrate-wood (in the case of modified poplar wood this lack would be even increased).
General: in the title and article text this combination of text is being found: “polyurethane non-transparent coatings process based on modified poplar wood”. Wouldn’t it be better to use applied on instead of based on?
2.1. Materials: A bit more info about the used coatings should be stated (like opacity, type of pigmentation, solvent …). Furthermore, there is no info about the properties of modified wood and the type of modification process and properties of modified wood. Please resolve this.
Line 89-92: It is not clear if the same method of application was used for Didebao primer, PU primer, and NC top coat. Please elaborate.
Table 1: Factor 5 – it is not clear to which coating this sanding refers.
Line 94 and 96: Text repetition!
Line 99 to 100 and more:
“Table 4 is the test results of paint film surface gloss, and Table 5 is the extremely poor analysis result.”
“Table 6 is the measured value of paint film adhesion, and Table 7 is the analysis of range error results.”
“Tables 8 and 9 are the results of the paint film's abrasion resistance test and the grade evaluation, and Table 5-11 is the analysis of the range error results”
All this text does not fit into this chapter but into results!
Line 117: »soft sand«??? Soft paper towel maybe?
Figures: There are Chinese letters in all Figures! Correct this.
Gloss results, Table 4 and Line 97 “To reduce the error, each direction was measured three times.«:
As it can be seen from the results of measurements of gloss in the longitudinal and perpendicular directions with respect to the grain direction, the differences are not large. If there are any since there were only three measurements in one direction and no statistical analysis of differences was performed. However, this is to be expected, as opaque coating systems were used in the study. For this reason, it is also not logical to measure the gloss in two directions, since the finishing of the diffusely porous woods with opaque systems usually does not offer visible or traced wood grain. I suggest combining all the measurements together and performing only one analysis instead of two separate ones. Furthermore, three measurements are not enough to exclude the measurement error, but at least six of them together would diminish it.
Lines 193-197: Unclear assumptions without evident support. Could you please rephrase this part to be more clear and add some research results to back up any relation to paint molecules.
Line 218: What is paint film standability?
Table 10: in the title “mass” (loss) is missing.
Table 10: Chinese letters in the revolution numbers. AND Shudn’t the result of mass loss be presented as g per revolutions and not no. of revolutions per g?!
3.3 Abrasion resistance of paint film:
In this chapter, there is a big discussion about the influence of sanding on the abrasion resistance of paint film. This discussion is a bit out of focus since sanding can not directly influence on the coating abrasion resistance, it is affecting the coating film thickness (sanding of the substrate – different penetration, different dry coating film thickness; intermediate sanding of the coating film – lower dry coating film thickness) and therefore has an indirect influence on the coating abrasion resistance. On the other hand, coating abrasion resistance is also very much dependent on the coating hardness. So, if these two properties would be monitored the research would benefit much more.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Polyurethane non-transparent coating process on paint film performance applied on modified poplar” (ID: coatings-1509613). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in gray in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Q1. I would not agree with these statements. The most common surface finishing of furniture in Europe (and most probably also in America) is finishing with transparent (mostly waterborne) coating systems. The use of opaque finish is for sure one way, but not the major one. It is mainly used for the surface finishing of fibre and chip boards (wood composites). Even in this case very often decorative foils or laminates are being used. The exception is the production of the elements for campers, holiday trailers where light elements are needed (light wood composites).
R: Relevant information has been revised, thank you.
Q2. In addition, the references supporting author's statements are not appropriate ones since they do not origin from Europe or America.
R: The references have been revised, thank you.
Q3. Please redo this part of the introduction to be more in line with the current state of the art and with more relevant references.
R: This part of introduction has been revised, thank you.
Q4. Line 57 and 58 “There are still many technical problems that need to be solved.« Please name them and add references. I presume that the main drawback of the use of poplar wood for furniture production is the lack of sufficient mechanical properties of the substrate-wood (in the case of modified poplar wood this lack would be even increased).
R：References have been added, thank you.
Q5. General: in the title and article text this combination of text is being found: “polyurethane non-transparent coatings process based on modified poplar wood”. Wouldn’t it be better to use applied on instead of based on?
R: “based on” has been changed to “applied on”, thank you.
Q6. 2.1. Materials: A bit more info about the used coatings should be stated (like opacity, type of pigmentation, solvent …). Furthermore, there is no info about the properties of modified wood and the type of modification process and properties of modified wood. Please resolve this.
R: Information about the used coatings , the properties of modified wood and the type of modification process have been stated, thank you.
It is chemical modification. The specific steps of poplar wood modification are as follows. First, urea was dissolved in water and antimony trioxide was dissolved in glacial acetic acid. The poplar wood modifying agent was prepared by mixing these two liquids. Then the poplar wood was processed into 150 mm × 80 mm × 20 mm pieces according to the requirements, and then put into the modifier (liquid) under vacuum, for 4 h under a pressure of 3.0 MPa. Finally, the poplar was sent to a 90 °C drying chamber for 24 h to reach an equilibrium moisture content of 8.0%.
The fiber structure of poplar is loose and the material is poor. The modified poplar not only has enhanced mechanical strength, improved dimensional stability, but also full color. The inherent structural texture of wood can be better highlight . It has been used to replace high-grade wood to make furniture.
Q7. Line 89-92: It is not clear if the same method of application was used for Didebao primer, PU primer, and NC top coat. Please elaborate.
A: The same method of application was used for Didebao primer, PU primer, and NC top coat. The spray gun "vertical gun" was used for Didebao primer, PU primer and NC top coat. To ensure the same "coating amount" of the test piece, the spray gun air pressure was controlled to 0.5 MPa, the nozzle paint output was 200 mL/min, and the spray width was 180 mm, spraying distance was 200 mm, one spray was a "cross gun".
Q8. Table 1: Factor 5 – it is not clear to which coating this sanding refers.
A: Factor 2 refers to the first sanding after applying Didebao primer and Factor 5 refers to the second sanding after applying top coat.
Q9. Line 94 and 96: Text repetition!
R: The repetition has been deleted, thank you.
Q10. Line 99 to 100 and more:
“Table 4 is the test results of paint film surface gloss, and Table 5 is the extremely poor analysis result.”
“Table 6 is the measured value of paint film adhesion, and Table 7 is the analysis of range error results.”
“Tables 8 and 9 are the results of the paint film's abrasion resistance test and the grade evaluation, and Table 5-11 is the analysis of the range error results”
All this text does not fit into this chapter but into results!
R: All of this text have been putted into results, thank you.
Q11. Line 117: »soft sand«??? Soft paper towel maybe?
R: “soft sand” has been changed to “soft paper towel”, thank you.
Q12. Figures: There are Chinese letters in all Figures! Correct this.
R: Chinese letters have been revised, thank you.
Q13. Gloss results, Table 4 and Line 97 “To reduce the error, each direction was measured three times.«:As it can be seen from the results of measurements of gloss in the longitudinal and perpendicular directions with respect to the grain direction, the differences are not large. If there are any since there were only three measurements in one direction and no statistical analysis of differences was performed. However, this is to be expected, as opaque coating systems were used in the study. For this reason, it is also not logical to measure the gloss in two directions, since the finishing of the diffusely porous woods with opaque systems usually does not offer visible or traced wood grain. I suggest combining all the measurements together and performing only one analysis instead of two separate ones. Furthermore, three measurements are not enough to exclude the measurement error, but at least six of them together would diminish it.
R: The measurements have been combined together and Range analysis is performed to analyze the result, thank you.
Q14. Lines 193-197: Unclear assumptions without evident support. Could you please rephrase this part to be more clear and add some research results to back up any relation to paint molecules.
R: Unclear assumptions has been revised, thank you.
Q15: Line 218: What is paint film standability?
R: “standability” has been changed to “sandability”, thank you.
Q16: Table 10: in the title “mass” (loss) is missing.
R: “mass” has been added into the title, thank you.
Q17: Table 10: Chinese letters in the revolution numbers. AND Shudn’t the result of mass loss be presented as g per revolutions and not no. of revolutions per g?!
R: Chinese letters in the revolution numbers have been changed into English. “r/g” has been changed into “g/r”, thank you.
Q18: 3.3 Abrasion resistance of paint film: In this chapter, there is a big discussion about the influence of sanding on the abrasion resistance of paint film. This discussion is a bit out of focus since sanding can not directly influence on the coating abrasion resistance, it is affecting the coating film thickness (sanding of the substrate – different penetration, different dry coating film thickness; intermediate sanding of the coating film – lower dry coating film thickness) and therefore has an indirect influence on the coating abrasion resistance. On the other hand, coating abrasion resistance is also very much dependent on the coating hardness. So, if these two properties would be monitored the research would benefit much more.
R: This chapter has been revised, more attention is paid to paint film mass loss and thickness rather than abrasion resistance of paint film, thank you.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers ‘warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Review of the article: Effect of Polyurethane non-transparent coating process on paint film performance based on modified poplar
The presented topic may be interesting for the reader. However there are numerous errors in the presentation of the subject (introduction), research methods, analysis of research results. The work requires many additions and corrections in the indicated areas.
Abstract:
Lines 9-10: Surface finishing process of European and American furniture is complicated and essential.
- What does it mean?
- Why European and American?
- How is poplar different from Europe, America, Asia?
- What specie of poplar?
- Please prepare an abstract in accordance with the requirements of the journal.
Introduction
Lines 25-26: Please justify why the topic concerns European and American furniture?
Lines 31-32: modified poplar wood…
- What modification does this concern?
- What specie of poplar?
Lines 54 - 60: These are very general phrases.
Materials and Methods
- What were the dimensions of the samples?
- How many samples were there?
- Modified poplar wood - what modification does this concern? Thermal, mechanical, chemical?
- Please provide the technical characteristics of the materials used.
Testing and Characterization
- Please provide the models of the devices used.
- How many measurements were taken?
- How were the results produced?
- What statistical analyzes were used?
Results and Discussion-
- Please provide pictures of the coatings.
- The data is presented in a superficial, very illegible way, e.g. Figure 1, 2, 3.
- What do the x axes mean?
- Why is there no statistical analysis of the test results?
- Lack of analysis of the research results in conjunction with the scientific literature.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Polyurethane non-transparent coating process on paint film performance applied on modified poplar” (ID: coatings-1509613). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in purple in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Lines 9-10: Surface finishing process of European and American furniture is complicated and essential.
Q1: What does it mean?
R: This sentence has been revised, thank you. Surface finishing process of European and American furniture is complicated.
Q2: Why European and American?
R: Europe and America furniture has exquisite materials, variety shapes and excellent surface finishes which are deeply loved by people. This research try to explore the effect of Europe and America furniture ‘s painting process applied on modified poplar. Provide a basis for the extensive use of modified poplar wood as a substrate in the European and American furniture markets.
Q3: How is poplar different from Europe, America, Asia?
R: Wood commonly applied in Europe and America furniture is Mahogany. The price of mahogany is quite high and it is lack of resources. Poplar is one kind of fast-growing wood which has the characteristics of rich resources and strong adaptability. Modified poplar has been used to replace slow-growing wood gradually.
Q4: What specie of poplar?
R: PopulusL.
Q5: Please prepare an abstract in accordance with the requirements of the journal.
R: The abstract has been revised, thank you.
Q6: Lines 25-26: Please justify why the topic concerns European and American furniture?
R: Europe and America furniture has exquisite materials, variety shapes and excellent surface finishes which are deeply loved by people. Wood commonly applied in Europe and America furniture is Mahogany. The price of mahogany is quite high and it is lack of resources. Poplar is one kind of fast-growing wood and modified poplar has been used to replace slow-growing wood gradually for its characteristics of rich resources and strong adaptability. This research try to explore the effect of Europe and America furniture ‘s painting process applied on modified poplar. Provide a basis for the extensive use of modified poplar wood as a substrate in the European and American furniture markets.
Q7: What modification does this concern?
R: It is chemical modification. The specific steps of poplar wood modification are as follows. First, urea was dissolved in water and antimony trioxide was dissolved in glacial acetic acid. The poplar wood modifying agent was prepared by mixing these two liquids. Then the poplar wood was processed into 150 mm × 80 mm × 20 mm pieces according to the requirements, and then put into the modifier (liquid) under vacuum, for 4 h under a pressure of 3.0 MPa. Finally, the poplar was sent to a 90 °C drying chamber for 24 h to reach an equilibrium moisture content of 8.0%.
Q8: What specie of poplar?
R: PopulusL.
Q9: Lines 54 - 60: These are very general phrases.
R: These phrases have been revised, thank you.
Q10: What were the dimensions of the samples?
R: The dimensions of the samples are 150 mm × 80 mm × 20 mm.
Q11: How many samples were there?
R: There are three samples for each kind of finishing process (G1 - G16), a total for 48 samples.
Q12: Modified poplar wood - what modification does this concern? Thermal, mechanical, chemical?
R: It is chemical modification. The specific steps of poplar wood modification are as follows. First, urea was dissolved in water and antimony trioxide was dissolved in glacial acetic acid. The poplar wood modifying agent was prepared by mixing these two liquids. Then the poplar wood was processed into 150 mm × 80 mm × 20 mm pieces according to the requirements, and then put into the modifier (liquid) under vacuum, for 4 h under a pressure of 3.0 MPa. Finally, the poplar was sent to a 90 °C drying chamber for 24 h to reach an equilibrium moisture content of 8.0%.
Q13: Please provide the technical characteristics of the materials used.
R: The technical characteristics of the materials have been added, thank you. The fiber structure of poplar is loose and the material is poor. The modified poplar not only has enhanced mechanical strength, improved dimensional stability, but also full color. The inherent structural texture of wood can be better highlight .
Q14: Please provide the models of the devices used.
R: The models of the devices used have been added into manuscript, thank you.
Q15: How many measurements were taken?
R: Each measurement was repeated three times, thank you.
Q16: How were the results produced?
R: Range analysis was produced to analyze the data. The primary and secondary factors can be obtained more intuitively and the optimal level of collocation can be found through simple comparison. OriginPro8.0 software was used to graphically process the range analysis result which is helpful of drawing conclusions more intuitively thank you..
Q17: What statistical analyzes were used?
R: Range analysis was produced to analyze the data. The primary and secondary factors can be obtained more intuitively and the optimal level of collocation can be found through simple comparison. OriginPro8.0 software was used to graphically process the range analysis result which is helpful of drawing conclusions more intuitively thank you..
Q18: Please provide pictures of the coatings.
R: The picture of coatings have been added into results and discussion, thank you.
Q19: The data is presented in a superficial, very illegible way, e.g. Figure 1, 2, 3.
R: Figures have been revised, thank you.
Q20: What do the x axes mean?
R: X axes means different finishing process applied on modified poplar, all of the figures have been revised, thank you.
Q21: Why is there no statistical analysis of the test results?
R: Range analysis was produced to analyze the data. The primary and secondary factors can be obtained more intuitively and the optimal level of collocation can be found through simple comparison. OriginPro8.0 software was used to graphically process the range analysis result which is helpful of drawing conclusions more intuitively.
Q22: Lack of analysis of the research results in conjunction with the scientific literature.
R: Scientific literatures have been added into results and discussion, thank you.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers ‘warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript can be published in Coatings .
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article has been improved, but not sufficiently in my opinion. The authors write "Scientific literatures have been added into results and discussion, thank you." I can't find any literature in the results section. Why are there no literary references? Is it pioneering research?
The results were obtained in a sophisticated way? “The primary and secondary factors can be obtained more intuitively and the optimal level of collocation can be found through simple comparison. OriginPro8.0 software was used to graphically process the range analysis result which is helpful of drawing conclusions more intuitively”.
Why was it not stated in the text of the article how many samples were used for the tests.
Which variant does the Figure 1 refer to? Research was conducted on this cross-section?
Line 83: Should be Populus L. instead of PopulusL.
Line 84: You should add information about poplar i.e. density, the width of the annual rings.
Line 84: What does „diameter section” mean? Or cross section?
Line 108: Should be MPa instead of MPa.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Polyurethane non-transparent coating process on paint film performance applied on modified poplar” (ID: coatings-1509613). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in purple in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Q1: The authors write "Scientific literatures have been added into results and discussion, thank you." I can't find any literature in the results section. Why are there no literary references? Is it pioneering research?
R: Scientific literatures 29-31 have been added into results and discussion (page 9 line 206 and 208), thank you.
Q2: The results were obtained in a sophisticated way? “The primary and secondary factors can be obtained more intuitively and the optimal level of collocation can be found through simple comparison. OriginPro8.0 software was used to graphically process the range analysis result which is helpful of drawing conclusions more intuitively”.
R: The result was obtained through range analysis. The primary and secondary factors can be obtained more intuitively and the optimal level of collocation can be found through range analysis, thank you.
Q3: Why was it not stated in the text of the article how many samples were used for the tests.
R: There are three samples for each kind of finishing process (G1 - G16), a total for 48 samples. Relevant information has been stated in the text, thank you.
Q4: Which variant does the Figure 1 refer to? Research was conducted on this cross-section?
R: Figure 1 refer to G11. Research was conducted on this cross-section, thank you.
Q5: Line 83: Should be Populus L. instead of PopulusL.
R: Relevant information has been revised, thank you.
Q6: Line 84: You should add information about poplar i.e. density, the width of the annual rings.
R: The wood density is 0.36 g/cm3 and the width of the annual rings is 1.54 mm, thank you.
Q7: Line 84: What does „diameter section” mean? Or cross section?
R: It should be “cross section” instead of “diameter section”, relevant information has been revised, thank you.
Q8: Line 108: Should be MPa instead of MPa.
R: Relevant information has been revised, thank you.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers ‘warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
