Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting design of three vertical stages’ solar distiller with paraffin commixed with graphene nanocomposites. The study employs four measuring tools to evaluate the solar irradiance, temperature, air velocity and yield of the proposed multi-stage solar distiller (MSSS) and a conventional distiller (CSS). The structures are clearly shown with real photographs. The experiments are thoroughly demonstrated. The thermal performance, influence of using thermos-storing material (TSM), thermal efficiency, environmental impacts, and economy are well studied. From the results, this new solar distiller design can efficiently and effectively improve the yield, reduce the environmental footprint, and is economically practical. I recommend the paper for publication in the journal of Processes after a minor revision.

 

1.     “CSS” in the abstract should not be abbreviated since it is the first time shown in this paper.  

2.     In Figure 1, the MSSS and CSS should be clearly indicated which is which.

3.     In line 206, there are duplicated word “Then”.

4.     Could you explain why the glass temperature of the second stage is higher than that of the other two stages and the glass temperature of CSS is lower than that of all stages of MSSS.

5.     When build tested SSs, there are CSS, MSSS, and MSSS + TSM. Why not add CSS + TSM ?

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1's comments: General Comment: This paper presents an interesting design of three vertical stages’ solar distiller with paraffin commixed with graphene nanocomposites. The study employs four measuring tools to evaluate the solar irradiance, temperature, air velocity and yield of the proposed multi-stage solar distiller (MSSS) and a conventional distiller (CSS). The structures are clearly shown with real photographs. The experiments are thoroughly demonstrated. The thermal performance, influence of using thermos-storing material (TSM), thermal efficiency, environmental impacts, and economy are well studied. From the results, this new solar distiller design can efficiently and effectively improve the yield, reduce the environmental footprint, and is economically practical. I recommend the paper for publication in the journal of Processes after a minor revision. Response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for his valuable suggestions. No action is needed here. Comment 1: “CSS” in the abstract should not be abbreviated since it is the first time shown in this paper. Response: Done. Comment 2: In Figure 1, the MSSS and CSS should be clearly indicated which is which. Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. Fig. 1 is modified to obtain this point. Comment 3: In line 206, there are duplicated word “Then”. Response: Corrected. Comment 4: Could you explain why the glass temperature of the second stage is higher than that of the other two stages and the glass temperature of CSS is lower than that of all stages of MSSS. Response: Thanks for the comment. The elevation in the temperature of the glass in the intermediate stage is attributable to the fact that the upper glass is subjected to the ambient atmospheric air. It is inherent that exposure to atmospheric conditions leads to a reduction in temperature. Conversely, the glass in the intermediate stage is exposed to the elevated temperature of the water at its base and is concurrently influenced by the temperature of the steam generated from the lower stage. Consequently, both the steam emanating from the base of the glass and the water above it contribute to an elevation in the temperature of the glass in the intermediate stage. In contrast, the lower stage experiences a decrease in temperature with increasing depth, as the water progressively dissipates a portion of its thermal energy. Consequently, the temperature of the glass in the lower stage is inherently lower than that of the intermediate stage. Comment 5: When build tested SSs, there are CSS, MSSS, and MSSS + TSM. Why not add CSS + TSM? Response: Thanks for the comment. We agree with the reviewer on this opinion, but we only used the traditional still to transparently compare the performance of the CSS and that of the MSSS. Therefore, whatever the productivity of the MSSS is, it is compared to the performance of the traditional distiller, and from it the effectiveness of only the modified part is deduced, as explained in Part 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the paper

"Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental prospects of three vertical stages' solar distiller with thermo-storing material"

 

            The relevance of the presented paper is beyond doubt. The multi-stage solar still (MSSS) proposed in this paper has been tested experimentally and shown to be effective. There are some questions about the Materials and Methods and Results sections 3.1 and 3.2, but overall the experiment is described quite clearly and the results of the direct measurements are shown in the figures and described in the text. However, when reading the paper one gets the impression that it is poorly proofread, which particularly hampers the perception of the material from section 3.3 onwards. The numbering of equations is broken. In the paper it is as follows: 1,2,3,1,5,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. It's a similar situation with the figures. For some quantities (e.g. h_fg), no units were specified. The values of ??_2,??????? (lines 313 and 316) and ??_2,????????? (lines 318 and 320) are calculated using different, conflicting equations. The value of n appears in line 313, and is only defined in Table 5, more than a page below. The meaning of the variables ?_??2 and ?' is not described in the text, it can be guessed only by implication. Etc. All of this makes it very difficult to see the paper.

            In my opinion, the paper clearly needs extensive editing and proofreading before going through the next stage of review.

 

Specific comments

            1. References [9-12] according to the text of the paper are devoted to "the problem of the excessive use of fossil energies, which may cause terrible environmental pollution", but these papers are devoted to desalination of water using solar energy and solar-distillation systems. Fossil energies are mentioned only incidentally, and the pollution issues caused by their use are not discussed.

            2. Lines 38-42 classify reverse osmosis as a distillation process, although it is not.

            3. The figure "Three-dimensional scheme for the MSSS" gives an idea of the design of the apparatus, but does not give information about the process of its operation. It seems to me that the figure of the apparatus in longitudinal section with indication of points of supply and water withdrawal, position of temperature sensors and marking of zones filled with water during operation will considerably improve the comprehension of the paper.

            4. What is "resolution" in Table 1? What exactly is meant by "error"? Standard deviation?

            5. The results shown in Fig. 3 are the data of the experiment on a particular day or the average of several days of measurements?

            6. The data in Figs. 6 and 7 for CSS are significantly different. What is the reason for this? The data for CSS given in Table 2 are also significantly different, although based on the description the experiments are identical. What is the reason? Are these fluctuations caused by differences in solar activity on different days?

            7. What explains the fact that the highest glass temperature is observed at the second (middle) stage of MSSS? The authors do not comment on this in any way.

            8. Weather conditions are described in detail for the experimental data presented in section 3.1. Why is this information not available for the experimental data presented in 3.2?

            9. Conclusions 1 and 2 are statements of the results of direct measurements of water and glass temperatures on the stages. It is not clear to me, why these data are so valuable in themselves, that they are put in a separate paragraph of conclusions on a par with comparison of CSS and MSSS efficiency?

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2's comments:

General Comment: The relevance of the presented paper is beyond doubt. The multi-stage solar still (MSSS) proposed in this paper has been tested experimentally and shown to be effective. There are some questions about the Materials and Methods and Results sections 3.1 and 3.2, but overall the experiment is described quite clearly and the results of the direct measurements are shown in the figures and described in the text. However, when reading the paper one gets the impression that it is poorly proofread, which particularly hampers the perception of the material from section 3.3 onwards. The numbering of equations is broken. In the paper it is as follows: 1,2,3,1,5,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. It's a similar situation with the figures. For some quantities (e.g. hfg), no units were specified. The values of ??2,??????? (lines 313 and 316) and ??2,????????? (lines 318 and 320) are calculated using different, conflicting equations. The value of n appears in line 313, and is only defined in Table 5, more than a page below. The meaning of the variables ???2 and ?' is not described in the text, it can be guessed only by implication. Etc. All of this makes it very difficult to see the paper. In my opinion, the paper clearly needs extensive editing and proofreading before going through the next stage of review.

Response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for devoting his time to make our paper in a better form, and all comments are taken into consideration point by point in the revised version. The numbering of equations is revised and corrected. Also, the figures’ captions are revised and corrected.

 

Comment 1: References [9-12] according to the text of the paper are devoted to "the problem of the excessive use of fossil energies, which may cause terrible environmental pollution", but these papers are devoted to desalination of water using solar energy and solar-distillation systems. Fossil energies are mentioned only incidentally, and the pollution issues caused by their use are not discussed.

Response: It is corrected and modified.

 

Comment 2: Lines 38-42 classify reverse osmosis as a distillation process, although it is not.

Response: These two sentences are modified and corrected.

 

Comment 3: The figure "Three-dimensional scheme for the MSSS" gives an idea of the design of the apparatus, but does not give information about the process of its operation. It seems to me that the figure of the apparatus in longitudinal section with indication of points of supply and water withdrawal, position of temperature sensors and marking of zones filled with water during operation will considerably improve the comprehension of the paper.

Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. It is replaced by another one considering the reviewer comments.

 

Comment 4: What is "resolution" in Table 1? What exactly is meant by "error"? Standard deviation?

Response: Thanks for the comment. As you know, the resolution of an instrument refers to the smallest incremental change in a measured quantity that the instrument can detect or display. While the reading error in Table 1 is the discrepancy between the observed or measured value that a user reads from an instrument and the true or actual value of the quantity being measured. Then, minimizing reading errors is essential for better operation and evaluation of performance.

Also, these information are added to the revised version.

 

Comment 5: The results shown in Fig. 3 are the data of the experiment on a particular day or the average of several days of measurements?

Response: Thanks for the comment. Each tested case was replicated twice, and the results presented in the findings section represent the averaged data to ensure accuracy and reliability. Also, this information is added to the revised version of manuscript. Please refer to section 2.4.

 

Comment 6: The data in Figs. 6 and 7 for CSS are significantly different. What is the reason for this? The data for CSS given in Table 2 are also significantly different, although based on the description the experiments are identical. What is the reason? Are these fluctuations caused by differences in solar activity on different days?

Response: Thanks for the comment. We would like to emphasize that the difference between the production value of each distiller is different for the same distiller for another day testing. Therefore, it was important to compare two distillers being tested under the same ambient weather conditions and the same weather in terms of radiation intensity, temperature, and wind speed, and then extract the value of the difference in productivity as a percentage between the two distillers. The reliability of the experiments was also confirmed by repeating the experiment twice and taking the average between them.

 

Comment 7: What explains the fact that the highest glass temperature is observed at the second (middle) stage of MSSS? The authors do not comment on this in any way.

Response: Thanks for the comment. The elevation in the temperature of the glass in the intermediate stage is attributable to the fact that the upper glass is subjected to the ambient atmospheric air. It is inherent that exposure to atmospheric conditions leads to a reduction in temperature. Conversely, the glass in the intermediate stage is exposed to the elevated temperature of the water at its base and is concurrently influenced by the temperature of the steam generated from the lower stage. Consequently, both the steam emanating from the base of the glass and the water above it contribute to an elevation in the temperature of the glass in the intermediate stage. In contrast, the lower stage experiences a decrease in temperature with increasing depth, as the water progressively dissipates a portion of its thermal energy. Consequently, the temperature of the glass in the lower stage is inherently lower than that of the intermediate stage.

 

Comment 8: Weather conditions are described in detail for the experimental data presented in section 3.1. Why is this information not available for the experimental data presented in 3.2?

Response: Thanks for the comment. This is based on the consistency of weather conditions throughout the measurement days, where only the numerical values vary, while the behavior would take the same trend. Solar radiation tends to increase from the start of the day until midday, reaching its peak, influencing temperatures and productivity accordingly. Subsequently, these values gradually decline. The primary distinction in today's readings lies in the magnitude of the change. Opting not to replicate the results and illustrations reflects our commitment to maintaining clarity and avoiding unnecessary redundancy in the presentation.

Comment 9: Conclusions 1 and 2 are statements of the results of direct measurements of water and glass temperatures on the stages. It is not clear to me, why these data are so valuable in themselves, that they are put in a separate paragraph of conclusions on a par with comparison of CSS and MSSS efficiency?

Response: Thanks for the comment. The conclusions are revised and modified as requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the author described the solar distiller model with numerical simulation and the analytical process was well demonstrated. However, there is mainly the theoretical method to show the main purpose of this research, and I suggest re-consider the submission of this manuscript. My comments are below:

1, Although the abstract is well described, it is hard to see the goal of this research. Please re-write this section.

2, The author mentioned the phase change material (PCM) in the introduction section, but there was no result relating to the PCM. Please show the reason why the PCM part was described in this manuscript.

3, There are two Figure 1, and Figure 3 is ahead of Figure 2. In addition, there are no Figure 4, and Figure 5,,,, please modify the error.

4, It is hard to see the experimental section, the author mentioned the experimental method, please re-write the experimental section.

5, Does this research mention the thermal energy storage (TES)??

6, The description of application was not so clearly, please re-write it.

7, The author mentioned the three-dimensional stages, there is only a simple schematic, please add more figures and describe the related concept.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check the grammatical errors.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3's comments:

General Comment: In this paper, the author described the solar distiller model with numerical simulation and the analytical process was well demonstrated. However, there is mainly the theoretical method to show the main purpose of this research, and I suggest re-consider the submission of this manuscript. My comments are below:

Response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for his valuable suggestions. No action is needed here.

 

Comment 1: Although the abstract is well described, it is hard to see the goal of this research. Please re-write this section.

Response: Done.

 

Comment 2: The author mentioned the phase change material (PCM) in the introduction section, but there was no result relating to the PCM. Please show the reason why the PCM part was described in this manuscript.

Response: Thanks for the comment. We meant by the TSM as the same as the phase change material (PCM). Then, the abbreviation TSM is replaced by PCM to clear the misunderstanding.

 

Comment 3: There are two Figure 1, and Figure 3 is ahead of Figure 2. In addition, there are no Figure 4, and Figure 5,,,, please modify the error.

Response: They are corrected.

 

Comment 4: It is hard to see the experimental section, the author mentioned the experimental method, please re-write the experimental section.

Response: Done.

 

Comment 5: Does this research mention the thermal energy storage (TES)??

Response: Thanks for the comment. We meant by the TSM as the same as the phase change material (PCM). Then, the abbreviation TSM is replaced by PCM to clear the misunderstanding.

 

Comment 6: The description of application was not so clearly, please re-write it.

Response: Thanks for the comment. It is revised and re-writen.

 

Comment 7: The author mentioned the three-dimensional stages, there is only a simple schematic, please add more figures and describe the related concept.

Response: Thanks for the comment. A new schematic diagram is added to clearly obtain the three-dimensional stages. Kindly refer to Fig. 2.

 

Comment 8: Please check the grammatical errors.

Response: Thanks for the comment. The language is revised and polished as suggested.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review-v2 of the paper

"Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental prospects of three vertical stages' solar distiller with thermo-storing material"

 

The paper was slightly improved after the first stage of review, but most of the problems related to nomenclature and dimensions of quantities remained.

 

Specific comments

1. Section 2.1 specifies CSS geometric dimensions, but no MSSS dimensions. Why?

2. In Section 2.1, the description of the MSSS does not match Figures 1 and 2.

The paper writes: "The MSSS configuration involves three graded distillate flasks, three feeding taps, three controlling valves, three drain taps, and three drain valves, with each stage having one feeding tap, one distillate tap, and one drain tap." However, Fig. 2 shows only 4 valves.

Further in the description of Lower Stage (First Stage) - "The collected distillate is directed to the outside graded flask labelled "Flask 1" in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2". However, Figures 1 and 2 are not labelled "Flask 1".

3. In Fig. 3 shows air humidity ratio as one of the characteristics of weather conditions. However, the paper does not specify what device was used for this measurement. In Table 1 "The characteristics and specifics of the measuring devices" there are no characteristics of this device.

4. At the end of Section 2.3, the error "thermal efficacy" is given. However, further in the paper this parameter is mentioned only once in lines 235-236 (Furthermore, the influence of air speed on the thermal efficacy of the distiller is minor.). What is this? Is it the same as "Efficiency" from Table 2 and "energy efficacy" from paragraph 4 of the conclusions?

5. The thermo-storing material used is written about very shortly. There is almost no data. Was this material purchased or manufactured by the authors? If it is a commercial product it should have a name and characteristics, which in my opinion should be given in the paper.

6. There is confusion about the value "yield" in the paper. In the captions of Figures 6 and 7 this value is called "yield", on the scale of these figures this value is called "productivity", in the caption under Figure 6 also "productivity", in the caption under Figure 7 there are two different terms "water production" and "output", and in Table 2 "distillate". What is the reason for such a number of terms for one value? If it is not necessary, I think it is better to unify terminology, otherwise it leads to confusion.

7. What is h_fg? The only explanation is in equation 4 (latent heat). Latent heat of what? Apparently the vapourisation of water, but nowhere in the paper is this stated. If so, at what temperature is it taken? What is its dimension?

I did point this out at the previous review stage.

8. Equation 4 raises questions. If the dimensions:

yiled (ml/m²)

area (m²)

sun irradiation (W/m²)

then the dimension of "latent heat" should be W*m²/ml=(J*m²)/(ml*s). What is this? If "latent heat" is the heat of vaporisation of water, then its dimensionality should be J/kg or J/mol.

9. Is Exergy output in Eq. 5 and  in Eq. 6 the same value? If yes, why different symbols?

10. What is h_ew in Eq. 6? What is its dimension?

11. The paper does not explain the value of constant 2 in Eqs. 9-13. The paper [48] to which the authors refer further refers to http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.11.025 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.02.042 . And only there it is reported that this is the amount of CO2 in kg formed during generation, transmission, distribution and utilisation of 1 kWh of energy from fossil fuels. In addition, different papers give different values depending on the method of generation, characteristics of the power grid and consumer devices.

Given that Eqs. 9-13 are empirical, it seems to me that the paper should provide explanations of the values used and their origin.

12. There appears to be an error in equation 11. According to line 396, E_out has the dimension kW.h/year. Accordingly, to obtain kg/year there is no need to divide by n.

13. In Table 4, the dimensions ?_CO2 and Z' are years. Although, according to Eq. 13 and 14, they should be tonnes and dollars, respectively.

The value of Z' according to Eq. 14 should be 12*14,5=174, not 160 as given in Table 3.

14. The proportion of CO2 released annually (Eq.9) and the total carbon dioxide emissions during the device's lifespan (Eq. 10) identified by the same symbol, although they are different values.

The situation is similar with equations 11 and 12.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The paper was slightly improved after the first stage of review, but most of the problems related to nomenclature and dimensions of quantities remained.

 Specific comments

1. Section 2.1 specifies CSS geometric dimensions, but no MSSS dimensions. Why?

The dimensions of MSSS are added.

2. In Section 2.1, the description of the MSSS does not match Figures 1 and 2.

Revised and corrected.

The paper writes: "The MSSS configuration involves three graded distillate flasks, three feeding taps, three controlling valves, three drain taps, and three drain valves, with each stage having one feeding tap, one distillate tap, and one drain tap." However, Fig. 2 shows only 4 valves.

This paragraph is modified to match the figures, but it should be mentioned that the figure is 2D sketch. So, some details cannot be illustrated as wished.

Further in the description of Lower Stage (First Stage) - "The collected distillate is directed to the outside graded flask labelled "Flask 1" in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2". However, Figures 1 and 2 are not labelled "Flask 1".

This sentence is modified and corrected.

3. In Fig. 3 shows air humidity ratio as one of the characteristics of weather conditions. However, the paper does not specify what device was used for this measurement. In Table 1 "The characteristics and specifics of the measuring devices" there are no characteristics of this device.

The device which is used to measure the air humidity is added to Table 1 as requested.

4. At the end of Section 2.3, the error "thermal efficacy" is given. However, further in the paper this parameter is mentioned only once in lines 235-236 (Furthermore, the influence of air speed on the thermal efficacyof the distiller is minor.). What is this? Is it the same as "Efficiency" from Table 2 and "energy efficacy" from paragraph 4 of the conclusions?

Both words (efficacy & efficiency) are the same within the context. However, we removed the uncommon word (efficacy) and replaced it with (efficiency).

5. The thermo-storing material used is written about very shortly. There is almost no data. Was this material purchased or manufactured by the authors? If it is a commercial product it should have a name and characteristics, which in my opinion should be given in the paper.

The PCM was paraffin wax combined with graphene nanocomposites. The properties of the paraffin wax was added as requested.

6. There is confusion about the value "yield" in the paper. In the captions of Figures 6 and 7 this value is called "yield", on the scale of these figures this value is called "productivity", in the caption under Figure 6 also "productivity", in the caption under Figure 7 there are two different terms "water production" and "output", and in Table 2 "distillate". What is the reason for such a number of terms for one value? If it is not necessary, I think it is better to unify terminology, otherwise it leads to confusion.

Revised and unified as requested.

7. What is h_fg? The only explanation is in equation 4 (latent heat). Latent heat of what? Apparently the vapourisation of water, but nowhere in the paper is this stated. If so, at what temperature is it taken? What is its dimension?

Mentioned.

8. Equation 4 raises questions. If the dimensions:

yiled (ml/m²)

area (m²)

sun irradiation (W/m²)

then the dimension of "latent heat" should be W*m²/ml=(J*m²)/(ml*s). What is this? If "latent heat" is the heat of vaporisation of water, then its dimensionality should be J/kg or J/mol.

Revised and corrected. Please refer to equation 4.

9. Is Exergy output in Eq. 5 and  in Eq. 6 the same value? If yes, why different symbols?

Corrected.

10. What is h_ewin Eq. 6? What is its dimension?

Corrected and modified.

11. The paper does not explain the value of constant 2 in Eqs. 9-13. The paper [48] to which the authors refer further refers to http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.11.025 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.02.042 . And only there it is reported that this is the amount of CO2 in kg formed during generation, transmission, distribution and utilisation of 1 kWh of energy from fossil fuels. In addition, different papers give different values depending on the method of generation, characteristics of the power grid and consumer devices.

Given that Eqs. 9-13 are empirical, it seems to me that the paper should provide explanations of the values used and their origin.

Revised and corrected.

12. There appears to be an error in equation 11. According to line 396, E_outhas the dimension kW.h/year. Accordingly, to obtain kg/year there is no need to divide by n.

Done.

13. In Table 4, the dimensions ?_CO2and Z' are years. Although, according to Eq. 13 and 14, they should be tonnes and dollars, respectively.

The value of Z' according to Eq. 14 should be 12*14,5=174, not 160 as given in Table 3.

Corrected.

14. The proportion of CO2 released annually (Eq.9) and the total carbon dioxide emissions during the device's lifespan (Eq. 10) identified by the same symbol, although they are different values.

The situation is similar with equations 11 and 12.

Corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author modified a lot and this version looks very good. I suggest this manuscript to be accepted in this journal. My minor comments are below:

1, The author described the phase change material (PCM), it must be mentioned the thermal energy storage (TES), please show what kind of TES technology was utilized in this paper,,,

2, Is this device only utilized in tropical zone?? How about the coastal area or template zone??

3, Please cite this reference below:

   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352152X22023490

 

Author Response

The author modified a lot and this version looks very good. I suggest this manuscript to be accepted in this journal. My minor comments are below:

1, The author described the phase change material (PCM), it must be mentioned the thermal energy storage (TES), please show what kind of TES technology was utilized in this paper

The (PCM and TES) are the same.

2, Is this device only utilized in tropical zone?? How about the coastal area or template zone??

It is used anywhere while the solar radiation is available.

3, Please cite this reference below:

   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352152X22023490

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review-v3 of the paper

"Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental prospects of three vertical stages' solar distiller with thermo-storing material"

 

            Different terms "yield", "productivity", water production" are still used to refer to the concept of " yield". For example, in the captions to Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. If the authors found a possibility to improve this point, the paper, in my opinion, would benefit from it.

 

However, on the whole, in my opinion, the current version of the paper has made all the necessary corrections and can be published in this form.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Different terms "yield", "productivity", water production" are still used to refer to the concept of " yield". For example, in the captions to Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. If the authors found a possibility to improve this point, the paper, in my opinion, would benefit from it.

It is changed as requested in the figures.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx