Experimental Investigation of Particle Size Alteration and the Selective Crushing Phenomenon of Gangue during the Jaw Crushing Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Written language should be revised in accordance with the following examples:

Line 7   instead of “.... distribution law of gangue .......”  use  “.....distribution of gangue....”

Line 9    instead of   “.......in various discharge port widths.....”   use   “.....in various crusher disccharge setting.....”  or  If “discharge port widths” is belong to crusher, it must be explained.  It is not clear. 

Line 16   instead of “...by the width of the discharge port.....   “  use .....by the size of screen aperture....”

Line 21   instead of   “......it is found that the distribution rate of each component shows the law of first rising and then falling......”    use  “.....it is found that the the amount of each component first rising and then falling.....”

Line 102.  The gangue crushing equipment used in the experiment is a jaw crusher which is also a traditional ore crushing equipment commonly used in mines. 

Researchers used a laboratory jaw crusher in their study.  And they mentioned that as seen from the sentence above (line 102), Jaw crusher is a commonly used machine in mines.  In an industrial crushing operations, Crushing of the ore down to 8 or 6 mm is not common in Jaw crusher.  Jaw crusher generally prefered for coars crushing (>10 mm).

In Table 1.  Waht is the unit for the number given in table “% or something else”?  Assays must be defined as %.  It was not mentioned in the Table.  Also the figure 9  is not very descriptive. Numerical values may be given in a table.

The distribution of the components, such as Fe2O3, must be calculated and presented in this table.  For example, for 10 mm discharge setting given in this table, Fe2O3 content of -3 mm and +3 mm fractions are 5.93 and 0.77 respectively. It seem very meaningfull. But when I calculate the distribution of Fe2O3 using mass yields in each fraction (15% for -3 mm and 85% for +3 mm which are taken from fig 8) most of the Fe2O3 is seeing in coarse (+3 mm) fraction.

The mineral distribution depends on the amount that goes into that fraction rather than the analysis of the fraction.  This must be explained in the text.

Numeric values of -3 mm and +3 mm for various discharge setting (6-8-10 mm setting) were not given in the text.  Only graphical presantation were given in Fig  8).  Therefore calculation of distribution for componen such as CaO, MgO is not easy.  I strived to make a sample calculation for Fe2O3 in 10 mm discharge setting only.  The mass yield is more effective than the chemical assay for the calculations of distribution rates of components.  As regarding mass yield, all calculations should be made again.

Line 252.....   The distribution rate (ɛ) of type II (element C) in coarse-grained products decreases with the increase in the width of the discharge port because although the substances containing CaCO3, and MgCO3 magnesium carbonate are also distributed into the coarse-grained products.

The situation is not same as explain in above sentence. The CaO and MgO assays is higher in fine fraction (-3mm) than coarse fraction (+3 mm) in Table 1.

Line 303  In stead of “......the element migration in various particle size ranges.....” use .....the elemental distribution in various particle size ranges.....

In Table 2.  Instead of elemental ration, If elemental distribution (total amount of element in fraction/ total amount of element in feed) is given, the effect of crushing will be seen clearly.

Comments should be made on mineral distributions calculated using the weights and analyzes of the same fraction. 

Researchers used laboratory type jaw crusher.  This equipment is not a impact crusher.  This type of selective crushing operation requires impact crusher, since impact crusher increase selective crushing.

Line 361. “Then the particle size distribution model of gangue after jaw fracture is obtained:”

This interpretation applies only to the laboratory jaw crusher used.

Line 372.. As the width of the discharge port/port increases, the gangue particles containing CaO and MgO are enriched in the coarse-grained products. 

There is a confilict between this sentence and  Table 1.   Check Table 1.  CaO and MgO assays higher in -3mm fraction than +3 mm fraction.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer ,

Thank you for recognizing our efforts and putting forward constructive suggestions. We appreciate your time and effort in making valuable improvements to our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Reviewer’ comments are in black text, and the author responses appear in red. The revised manuscript is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript: sustainability-1890955

The manuscript describes how the grain size and chemical composition of charcoal gangue changes during the crushing process.  The manuscript fits within the scope of the Sustainability journal and should be reconsidered after some major editions. Please refer to the comments below:

GENERAL REMARKS

-the English language should be improved and rewritten to fit the scientific style

-page numbers missing (I will refer to the page numbers assigned starting from the title page as page no. 1)

-the font should be bigger; to make it easier and not more difficult for the Reviewer

-the manuscript should be formatted according to the publisher’s guide lines

TITLE

-should be slightly rewritten and English-corrected to fit the content of the manuscript

ABSTRACT

-“distribution law” is not an appropriate expression

-taking into considering the size scale, “particle” term seems not correct (please adjust it in the title as well)

-lines 15 to 17: “different” is not an informative expression, please specify and rewrite the sentence

-lines 17-20: please rewrite; for example in general, you mean that when you have smaller grains you observe a higher content of aluminium and silicon oxide and atomic carbon; please rephrase the whole fragment so that the meaning is clear

-the line second to the last one: “law” is not the correct term here, I suggest ”trend” or “ratio”

-instead of an equation here, please specify the type of dependency in a descriptive manner

-please adjust the keywords according to the comments above

INTRODUCTION

-page 2 lines 44-46: those two sentences are not informative, please rephrase

-while the introduction does provide the background and motivation to study the gangue properties towards potential applications, please direct it towards the area of your study; please slightly edit the middle sections (p.2 line 38 to page 3 line 80)

-was there any particular reason why the gangue from this specific mine was chosen? If yes please specify; if not, please also mention how its composition relates to the other areas

MATERIALS AND TEST

-the title of this part should be “materials and methods”

-protocols for measurements and the technical specifications of the equipment missing

-Figure 2 should be in the results part

-for the XRD data, it is not clear that the Authors measure the crystalline components, please be specific about it due to the the broad readership of the Sustainability journal and its different scientific background

-Figure 3: please make the images bigger and the text smaller; so that the overall respective size ratio is towards presenting the content of the images; it was a great idea to involve the photographs

-looking at the measurements, the XRD and XRF instruments are different from for the precise in-lab devices; please include a proper specification

-Is there a specific reason why the gangue was crushed only once?

-please include the software used for processing of the data (also for preparing graphs), and all the the equipment used in the study (

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

-this part should be “results and discussion”

-please keep a reasonable numbers of digits after the comma (1 or 2) in the given values to reduce the impression of chaos and give the results more significance

-please be concise in your discussion; please remove repetitions and phrases that are not necessary; this will give your results more relevance as well

-please present each of the equations in a separate line

-some parts of the description should be moved to the experimental part (e.g. lines 148-150) which should comprise all the technical description necessary to understand the results in the next part

-Figure 5: If there are any abbreviations in the graph, they should be described in the figure caption (like diameter here or ‘R-R’ – abbreviation not explained anywhere)

-line 149 “evolution law” term not appropriate, please rephrase

-all abbreviations should be explained at their first occurrence

-Equation 2: please use the word (or another) editing tools to write equations and keep the same layout throughout the manuscript

-what do you mean by R2 value is in a good agreement with the R-R distribution function? Can you introduce it with a reference?

-Figure 6: please do not use colors to distinguish between the lines, especially with those of similar and high brightness

-Figure 7: this graph is not clear; the experimental determination of the mathematical formula either; it is difficult to judge whether it is correct or not

-while this part is long, it includes some parts that should be actually moved to the introduction part, as they reveal the motivation behind the study as a whole (e.g. lines 185-191)

-the data in line 217 should be presented as a table

-protocol for the determination of the carbon content should be described in the “materials and methods” part

-line 218: is this the final form of the equation? if not, it should be further simplified; since this form is informative and does depict how parameters from the chemical equations above are inserted, the equation should be followed with the most simplified form, rather than exchanged

-Figure 8: please use different symbols for both curves; also consider separating the inset from the original graph and present them next to it; make sure their size is the same so that the whole looks organized and gives the results enough significance

-there seems there is no summary or comment regarding Table 1

-Figure 9: please use other method to distinguish between different materials than colors; I suggest

-for all graphs, please increase the font size for the X and Y values, and axes’description; consider removing frames from the graph legends

-line 263: what does this dependency indicate?

-Figure 11: please use different symbols for each graph; the way they are presented now, introduces an impression of disorganization; the same for Fig 12 and Fig 13

CONCLUSIONS

-please change the title of this section to “Summary”; while the style for this part here seems to be unusual, it is informative and concise

Author Response

Dear Reviewer ,

Thank you for recognizing our efforts and putting forward constructive suggestions. We appreciate your time and effort in making valuable improvements to our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Reviewer’ comments are in black text, and the author responses appear in red. The revised manuscript is attached.

Point 1: The manuscript describes how the grain size and chemical composition of charcoal gangue changes during the crushing process. The manuscript fits within the scope of the Sustainability journal and should be reconsidered after some major editions. Please refer to the comments below:

GENERAL REMARKS

-the English language should be improved and rewritten to fit the scientific style

-page numbers missing (I will refer to the page numbers assigned starting from the title page as page no. 1)

-the font should be bigger; to make it easier and not more difficult for the Reviewer

-the manuscript should be formatted according to the publisher’s guide lines

TITLE

-should be slightly rewritten and English-corrected to fit the content of the manuscript

Response 1:

Thank you for your careful review of the article; We agree that your advice is valuable and correct; We have revised and replied according to your suggestion.

We have improved the English language of the article to fit the scientific style, and added

page numbers to the article.

As the current reference is the journal recommended font, we agree that the font should indeed be larger, and the author team will discuss this issue with the editor again.

TITLE

We have replaced title “Study on particle size change ……” with “Experimental investigation of particle size alteration and the selective crushing phenomenon of gangue during jaw crushing process”

ABSTRACT

Point 2:

-“distribution law” is not an appropriate expression

Response 2:

-Line 7   replaced “.... distribution law of gangue .......” with “.....distribution of gangue....”

Point 3:

-taking into considering the size scale, “particle” term seems not correct (please adjust it in the title as well)

Response 3:

-We have replaced title “Study on particle size change ……” with “Experimental investigation of particle size alteration and the selective crushing phenomenon of gangue during jaw crushing process”

-We have checked the full text and used particle size instead of particle when expressing the grade of particle size

Point 4:

-lines 15 to 17: “different” is not an informative expression, please specify and rewrite the sentence

Response 4:

- lines 15 to 17: replaced “different” with “ various”

Point 5:

-lines 17-20: please rewrite; for example in general, you mean that when you have smaller grains you observe a higher content of aluminium and silicon oxide and atomic carbon; please rephrase the whole fragment so that the meaning is clear.

Response 5:

-Optimized lines 16-19 as follows:

As the discharge port width increases, the elements of CaO and MgO are enriched in the coarse-grained products, while those containing Fe₂O₃ are enriched from fine-grained to coarse-grained. Gangue particles containing Al₂O₃, SiO_2, and C are enriched in the fine-grained product.

Point 6:

-the line second to the last one: “law” is not the correct term here, I suggest ”trend” or “ratio”

Response 6:

-replaced “law” with “trend”

Point 7:

-instead of an equation here, please specify the type of dependency in a descriptive manner

Response 7:

-replaced “equation” with “......follows the exponential patternin”

Point 8:

-please adjust the keywords according to the comments above

Response 8:

-key words have been adjusted to “ Gangue; Jaw crushing; Particle size distribution; Elemental analysis; Selective crushing ”

INTRODUCTION

Point 9:

-page 2 lines 44-46: those two sentences are not informative, please rephrase

Response 9:

-We have delete the some non-informative content

Point 10:

-while the introduction does provide the background and motivation to study the gangue properties towards potential applications, please direct it towards the area of your study; please slightly edit the middle sections (p.2 line 38 to page 3 line 80)

Response 10:

-A description has been added on lines 52-55

Point 11:

-was there any particular reason why the gangue from this specific mine was chosen? If yes please specify; if not, please also mention how its composition relates to the other areas

Response 11:

-According to the mine survey, Mahuangliang Coal mine in Yulin mining area, China, is currently using a jaw crusher with a discharge port width of 8mm as the primary crushing equipment. At present, a large amount of gangue is being broken in this mine, and it is planned to make different resource utilization of gangue with different particle sizes, so the gangue from this mine is selected as the research object

Point 12:

MATERIALS AND TEST

-the title of this part should be “materials and methods”

Response 12:

-the title has been adjusted to “materials and methods”

Point 13:

-protocols for measurements and the technical specifications of the equipment missing

Response 13:

-line 110-117, we have added technical specifications of crushing equipment

Point 14:

-Figure 2 should be in the results part

Response 14:

-line 201-209: We have placed Figure 2 and description in Section 3.2.

Point 15:

-for the XRD data, it is not clear that the Authors measure the crystalline components, please be specific about it due to the the broad readership of the Sustainability journal and its different scientific background

Response 15:

-Figure 2 shows the mineral composition and the proportion of elements in gangue. Considering that analysis only focuses on the chemical composition of gangue, the crystalline composition is not measured in this paper.

Point 16:

-Figure 3: please make the images bigger and the text smaller; so that the overall respective size ratio is towards presenting the content of the images; it was a great idea to involve the photographs

Response 16:

-We have enlarged some of the images as you suggested and reduced the font above the images appropriately

Point 17:

-looking at the measurements, the XRD and XRF instruments are different from for the precise in-lab devices; please include a proper specification

Response 17:

-Line 112-117, we have supplemented technical specifications of the equipment，which are marked in Figure 2 (line 132)

Point 18:

-Is there a specific reason why the gangue was crushed only once?

Response 18:

-Firstly, according to the theory of laminated crushing in jaw crushing process, the gangue has been broken many times in the process from the inlet to the outlet.

Secondly, the main objective of the test was to obtain gangue with different particle sizes, so it was screened after only one crushing. It is also possible to screen after multiple crushing. Of course, it is also possible to carry out screening monitoring after several crushing

Point 19:-please include the software used for processing of the data (also for preparing graphs), and all the the equipment used in the study (

Response 19:

Point 20: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

-this part should be “results and discussion”

Response 20:

-the title has been adjusted to “results and discussion”

Point 21:

-please keep a reasonable numbers of digits after the comma (1 or 2) in the given values to reduce the impression of chaos and give the results more significance

Response 21:

-We have checked and changed the problem you mentioned

Point 22:

-please be concise in your discussion; please remove repetitions and phrases that are not necessary; this will give your results more relevance as well

Response 22:

-Thank you for your advice. We have deleted the repeated sentences and partially adjusted the sentences.

Point 23:

-please present each of the equations in a separate line

Response 23:

-We have listed each equation separately

Point 24:

-some parts of the description should be moved to the experimental part (e.g. lines 148-150) which should comprise all the technical description necessary to understand the results in the next part

Response 24:

-We have placed lines 148-150 in “2.3 Scheme Design Section”

Point 25:

-Figure 5: If there are any abbreviations in the graph, they should be described in the figure caption (like diameter here or ‘R-R’ – abbreviation not explained anywhere)

-all abbreviations should be explained at their first occurrence

Response 25:

-Line133 We have annotated “Rosin-Rammler” and “diameter” for the first time in this paper

Point 26:

-line 149 “evolution law” term not appropriate, please rephrase

Response 26:

-Line121 Replaced “evolution law” with “alteration”

Point 27:

-Equation 2: please use the word (or another) editing tools to write equations and keep the same layout throughout the manuscript

Response 27:

-We have used Mathtype software to re-edit the formulas and equations

Point 28:

-what do you mean by R² value is in a good agreement with the R-R distribution function? Can you introduce it with a reference?

Response 28:

If “ln{-ln[1- R(D_p)]} -Lnd”is in good agreement with the linear equation(R² value is in a good agreement), it means that R(D_p) - D_p conforms to the R-R distribution, that is, the two equations in equation (2) can be transformed into each other.

In order to explain clearly, we cite several references in the paper: [28]-[31]

[28] González-Tello P, Camacho F, Vicaria J M, et al. A modified Nukiyama–Tanasawa distribution function and a Rosin–Rammler model for the particle-size-distribution analysis[J]. Powder Technology, 2008, 186(3): 278-281.

[29] Allaire S E, Parent L E. Size guide number and Rosin–Rammler approaches to describe particle size distribution of granular organic-based fertilisers[J]. Biosystems Engineering, 2003, 86(4): 503-509.

[30] Delagrammatikas G, Tsimas S. Grinding process simulation based on Rosin-Rammler equation[J]. Chemical Engineering Communications, 2004, 191(10): 1362-1378.

[31] Tambun R, Furukawa K, Hirayama M, et al. Measurement and Estimation of the Particle Size Distribution by the Buoyancy Weighing–Bar Method and the Rosin–Rammler Equation[J]. Journal of Chemical Engineering 5of Japan, 2018, 49(2): 229-233.

Point 29:

-Figure 6: please do not use colors to distinguish between the lines, especially with those of similar and high brightness

Response 29:

The colors and lines of the three curves in Fig. 5( original figure 6) are set to distinguish the factors of different discharge ports and to correspond with the lines in Fig. 4 ( original figure 5)

Point 30:

-Figure 7: this graph is not clear; the experimental determination of the mathematical formula either; it is difficult to judge whether it is correct or not

Response 30:

We have shown the data points in Figure 6( original figure 7), and we can see that their distribution fits the formula

Point 31:

-while this part is long, it includes some parts that should be actually moved to the introduction part, as they reveal the motivation behind the study as a whole (e.g. lines 185-191)

Response 31:

We have modified the original lines 185-191 and moved to the “ introduction ” part

Point 32:

-the data in line 217 should be presented as a table

-protocol for the determination of the carbon content should be described in the “materials and methods” part

Response 32:

We have moved the content of carbon determination to the "Materials and Methods" part

Point 33:

-line 218: is this the final form of the equation? if not, it should be further simplified; since this form is informative and does depict how parameters from the chemical equations above are inserted, the equation should be followed with the most simplified form, rather than exchanged

Response 33:

Line 128 We've simplified the equation to a new form

Point 34:

-Figure 8: please use different symbols for both curves; also consider separating the inset from the original graph and present them next to it; make sure their size is the same so that the whole looks organized and gives the results enough significance

Response 34:

The two curves in Figure 8 already use different symbols; The relationship between the inserted diagram and the original diagram is shown numerically next to it. The size of the current inserted graph is the same

Point 35:

-there seems there is no summary or comment regarding Table 1

-Figure 9: please use other method to distinguish between different materials than colors; I suggest

-for all graphs, please increase the font size for the X and Y values, and axes’description; consider removing frames from the graph legends

Response 35:

Table 1 and Figure 9 actually have the same meaning. Numerical values ware given in a table1 , Also the figure 9 is not very descriptive, so Figure 9 has been deleted from the paper.

Point 36:

-line 263: what does this dependency indicate?

Response 36:

Fig. 10 shows “Distribution ratio of elements in gangue with different Particle sizes”, and their range sizes are △ε. The larger △ε is, the greater is the influence of port width on element migration. You mentioned that “dependency” is the order in which the curve ranges.

Point 37:

-Figure 11: please use different symbols for each graph; the way they are presented now, introduces an impression of disorganization; the same for Fig 12 and Fig 13

Response 37:

In order to distinguish the changes of each element, Figure 9-10 classifies each element into typeⅠ~typeⅣ. In Figure 11-12, each element is set with a different color

Point 38:

Point 6: CONCLUSIONS

-please change the title of this section to “Summary”; while the style for this part here seems to be unusual, it is informative and concise

Response 38:

Line358 Replaced “ CONCLUSIONS ” with “Summary ”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper describes selective crushing phenomenon of gangue in jaw crushing process. This is a fundamental knowledge of coal treatment, and result appear to be reasonable. However, discussions are not always clear. In addition, conclusion is not clear whether this is a good or bad result and, alternatively, what is needed for industrial production. This referee recommends publication of this work in Sustainability after suitable revisions. 

1)    Line 205. Gamma cannot be understood.

2)    Line 223. Particulate material (-3mm) and crushed solid material (+3mm) are not clear. What – and + mean?

3)    Fig 9. Graphs do not seem to coincide with table data.

4)    Line 314 cannot be understood.

5)    Line 316. What order? 

6)    Line 261. What is ipsilon max?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer ,

Thank you for recognizing our efforts and putting forward constructive suggestions. We appreciate your time and effort in making valuable improvements to our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Reviewer’ comments are in black text, and the author responses appear in red. The revised manuscript is attached.

Point 1: Line 205. Gamma cannot be understood.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out, Gamma(γ) represents the mass fraction of each particle size after crushing, which is obtained by testing the ratio between the mass of each part of gangue and the total mass.

Point 2: Line 223. Particulate material (-3mm) and crushed solid material (+3mm) are not clear. What – and + mean?

Response2:

The definition and classification of granular material in powder mechanics are quoted. Particulate material (-3mm)refers to particles less than 3mm, and crushed solid material refers to particles larger than 3mm. (Note: -3mm refers to particles less than 3mm in diameter; +3mm refers to particles less than 3mm in diameter.)

Point 3: Fig 9. Graphs do not seem to coincide with table data.

Response 3:

Table 1 and Figure 9 actually have the same meaning. Numerical values ware given in a table1 , Also the figure 9 is not very descriptive, so Figure 9 has been deleted from the paper.

Point 4: Line 314 cannot be understood.

Response 4:

ɛ refers to the distribution rate (ɛ)；Δε_max refers to the ordinate range size of each curve in fig. 11.

Line 319 (original line314 ) represents the change degree (Δε_max) of distribution rate of each element with different particle sizes as can be seen from the figure 11.

Point 5: Line 316. What order?

Response 5:

The distribution order of C elements is shown in red in Table 2

Table 2 Element distribution in different particle size ranges

Point 6: Line 261. What is ipsilon max?

Response 6:

Ipsilon (ɛ) refers to the distribution rate (ɛ), Ipsilon max（Δε_max）refers to the change degree (Δε_max) of distribution rate of element with different particle sizes. The order is as follows: Fe₂O₃(36.00%)>SiO₂(19.83%)>Al₂O₃(15.54%)>C(14.43%)>MgO(9.51%)>CaO(8.38%).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The corrections made in line with my suggestions were found appropriate. The explanations given to my questions are sufficient. The necessary corrections that I suggested have also been completed by author.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer ,

Thank you for recognizing our efforts and putting forward constructive suggestions. Our paper has been greatly improved by your suggestion. Thank you again for your affirmation of our revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the manuscript has been improved significantly. Before an extensive language editing process, I suggest to take into consideration the following remarks.

line 128: please keep both versions of the equation; since there is no supplementary file, it will be the only place to provide the Reader with the procedure how the parameters were inserted into the formula

line 186: equation should be placed in a separate line

line: 267: the percent values and the compounds/minerals should in separated into 2 lines with compounds up and the corresponding percentages just below them

Author Response

Thank you for recognizing our efforts and putting forward constructive suggestions. We appreciate your time and effort in making valuable improvements to our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Reviewer’ comments are in black text, and the author responses appear in red. The revised manuscript is attached.

Point1：

line 128: please keep both versions of the equation; since there is no supplementary file, it will be the only place to provide the Reader with the procedure how the parameters were inserted into the formula

Response1：

Please allow us to explain the reason we decided on this version of the equation

It is assumed that the loss on ignition is caused by the thermal decomposition of CaCO₃ and MgCO₃ to release CO₂ and the combustion of C to generate CO₂ under other unchanged conditions. Assuming that the total loss on ignition is a%, the percentages of Cao and MgO are b% and c% respectively, their corresponding loss on ignition is 44b / 56 and 44c / 40. Then, because the loss on ignition caused by carbon combustion should be a - (44B / 56) - (44c / 40).

The corresponding expression is modified as follows to calculate the percentage of carbon (x)

Point2：

line 186: equation should be placed in a separate line

Response2：

line 189: We've placed the formula in a separate line

Point3：

line: 267: the percent values and the compounds/minerals should in separated into 2 lines with compounds up and the corresponding percentages just below them

Response3：

Thank you so much for such a constructive comment, the author has now separated both the orders in the revised manuscript. as follows:

Line275-277:it is clear that the influence of the width of the discharge port on each component is in the following order: Fe₂O₃> SiO₂> Al₂O₃> C> MgO> CaO. The corresponding percentage of each mineral is 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This referee still cannot recommend publication of this work in Sustainability. Meanings of various values need to be clearly described in text along with methods to obtain the values. Implication of this work in industry is also not clear, and it should be described how this result can contribute. This is just a progress report. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer ,

Thank you for recognizing our efforts and putting forward constructive suggestions. We appreciate your time and effort in making valuable improvements to our article. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Reviewer’ comments are in black text, and the author responses appear in red. The revised manuscript is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx