Nitrogen Transformation Mechanisms and Compost Quality Assessment in Sustainable Mesophilic Aerobic Composting of Agricultural Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Mesophilic aerobic composting is considered to be a potential composting process with good environment with good environment effects. This paper studied the nitrogen transformation mechanisms in mesophilic composting, the results are useful for the further development of mesophilic aerobic composting technologies. I think the manuscript can be published after minor revision.

 

1)     P7, line 281, how the cow manure accelerated the conversion of NH₄⁺-N to NO₃⁻-N while inhibiting the denitrification process, should be deeply-discussed.

2)     P8, line 316, NY525-2012 has been replaced by NY/T 525-2021

3)     P8, line 328, why Cd concentrations decreased while the decomposition and volatilization of Oms occurred.

4)     P14, line 516, you mentioned that the addition of cow dung can promote the nitrification process, why then inferred that the cow dung may inhibit the nitrification in line 527?

5)     If the comparisons of nitrogen transformation mechanisms between mesophilic and traditional composting can be added?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript should be edited for English by a native tongue speaker or professional editing company with experience in the field.

Author Response

Reviewer #1: Mesophilic aerobic composting is considered to be a potential composting process with good environment with good environment effects. This paper studied the nitrogen transformation mechanisms in mesophilic composting, the results are useful for the further development of mesophilic aerobic composting technologies. I think the manuscript can be published after minor revision.

• P7, line 281, how the cow manure accelerated the conversion of NH₄⁺-N to NO₃⁻-N while inhibiting the denitrification process, should be deeply-discussed.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Cow manure is rich in organic matter and microbial communities, which play a pivotal role in the nitrification process—the aerobic oxidation of ammonium (NH₄⁺-N) to nitrate (NO₃⁻-N). The high nitrogen content in cow manure provides a substantial substrate for nitrifying bacteria, such as Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter species, enhancing their activity and proliferation. This microbial augmentation accelerates the nitrification process, leading to a more rapid conversion of NH₄⁺-N to NO₃⁻-N [1].

Denitrification is an anaerobic process where nitrate (NO₃⁻-N) is reduced to gaseous forms of nitrogen, such as N₂O and N₂, leading to nitrogen loss [2]. The aerobic conditions maintained during mesophilic composting, combined with the addition of cow manure, create an environment that is less conducive to the anaerobic bacteria responsible for denitrification [3]. Furthermore, the presence of certain microbial communities in cow manure can outcompete denitrifiers for available substrates, thereby suppressing their activity [4]. This competitive inhibition, along with sustained aerobic conditions, effectively reduces the denitrification process during composting [1].

The addition of cow manure to mesophilic aerobic composting systems enhances the nitrification process by providing a rich source of ammonium and a diverse microbial community, thereby accelerating the conversion of NH₄⁺-N to NO₃⁻-N [3]. Simultaneously, the maintenance of aerobic conditions and microbial competition suppresses the denitrification process, reducing nitrogen losses and improving compost quality.

We have incorporated this detailed discussion into the revised manuscript to address your concerns and provide a clearer understanding of the nitrogen transformation mechanisms influenced by cow manure during composting.

 

2) P8, line 316, NY525-2012 has been replaced by NY/T 525-2021

Response: We have updated NY525-2012 to NY/T 525-2021. (Page 7, line 277)

 

3) P8, line 328, why Cd concentrations decreased while the decomposition and volatilization of OMs occurred.

Response: Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the observed decrease in Cd concentrations during the composting process, despite the decomposition and volatilization of organic matter (OM). We appreciate the opportunity to delve deeper into this phenomenon and provide a comprehensive explanation.

The initial increase in Cd concentration can be attributed to the reduction in compost mass and volume as OM decomposes and volatilizes, leading to a relative enrichment of heavy metals, including Cd. However, the subsequent decrease in Cd concentrations is likely due to several microbial-mediated mechanisms:

Biosorption: Microorganisms, particularly bacteria and fungi, possess cell wall components that can adsorb heavy metals through processes such as ion exchange, complexation, and precipitation. This passive uptake, known as biosorption, enables microbial cells to sequester Cd ions from the compost matrix, effectively reducing the bioavailable Cd concentration [5].

Bioaccumulation: Beyond surface adsorption, certain microorganisms can actively transport Cd ions into their intracellular compartments. This bioaccumulation process involves metabolic pathways that sequester Cd, often transforming it into less toxic or more stable forms, thereby diminishing its mobility and bioavailability in the compost [6].

Biotransformation: Microbial activity can alter the chemical speciation of Cd, converting it into insoluble compounds through processes such as precipitation with sulfides or phosphates. These transformations result in the immobilization of Cd, reducing its solubility and potential environmental impact [7]. Additionally, the formation of humic substances during composting can chelate Cd ions, further contributing to their immobilization and decreased bioavailability [7].

The observed decrease in Cd concentrations during the latter stages of composting is primarily due to microbial processes, including biosorption, bioaccumulation, and biotransformation, which sequester and stabilize Cd within the compost matrix. These mechanisms, coupled with the formation of humic substances, effectively reduce the mobility and toxicity of Cd, enhancing the overall quality and safety of the compost product.

We have incorporated this detailed explanation into the revised manuscript to address your concerns and provide a clearer understanding of the factors influencing Cd dynamics during composting.

 

4) P14, line 516, you mentioned that the addition of cow dung can promote the nitrification process, why then inferred that the cow dung may inhibit the nitrification in line 527?

Response: Cow manure can influence the nitrification process in composting systems in complex ways, depending on factors such as ammonia concentration, pH, and microbial community dynamics. The dual role of cow manure in both promoting and inhibiting nitrification is influenced by the balance between nutrient availability and environmental conditions within the composting system. While the addition of cow manure supplies essential nutrients that can stimulate nitrifying microorganisms [8], excessive ammonia concentrations [9] and elevated pH levels [10] can create inhibitory effects. Therefore, the net impact on nitrification depends on the specific composting conditions and the management of factors such as ammonia levels and pH.

On P14, line 516 of the original manuscript, the focus was primarily on nitrification. As we know, traditional nitrification consists of two steps: the ammonium oxidation process (NH₄⁺-N→NO₂^--N) and the nitrite oxidation process (NO₂^--N→NO₃^--N). The abundance of functional genes related to the ammonium oxidation process (amoA, amoB, amoC) was higher in group A than in group B, while the functional gene (hao) abundance associated with the nitrite oxidation process was lower in group A compared to group B. Therefore, we initially concluded that the addition of cow manure inhibited the ammonium oxidation process but enhanced the nitrite oxidation process. It is important to note that although the nitrite oxidation process was somewhat strengthened, the ammonium oxidation process was significantly inhibited. Consequently, overall nitrification in the cow manure-amended group was still suppressed.

In line 527 of the original manuscript, the focus was on denitrification. Based on the changes in the abundance of functional genes related to denitrification (narG, narH, narI, napA, napB, nirK, nirS, norZ, norB, and norC), the addition of cow manure was found to promote this process. Considering the functional gene variations associated with nitrification discussed earlier, we concluded that cow manure addition may increase nitrogen loss by inhibiting nitrification within the microbial community while promoting denitrification.

We have revised the manuscript to clearly articulate these nuances, ensuring that the discussion accurately reflects the complex interactions at play.

 

• If the comparisons of nitrogen transformation mechanisms between mesophilic and traditional composting can be added?

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion to include a comparison of nitrogen transformation mechanisms between mesophilic and traditional (thermophilic) composting processes. We appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on this aspect to enhance the comprehensiveness of our manuscript.

Composting involves a succession of microbial activities that transform organic nitrogen into inorganic forms, primarily through ammonification, nitrification, and denitrification. The temperature regimes in mesophilic (moderate temperature) and thermophilic (high temperature) composting significantly influence these nitrogen transformation pathways [2, 11, 12].

• Mesophilic composting:

Microbial activity: Dominated by mesophilic microorganisms, such as certain bacteria and fungi, which operate optimally at temperatures between 20–45°C [12].

Nitrogen dynamics: The moderate temperatures facilitate steady ammonification and nitrification processes [13]. However, the overall rate of nitrogen transformation may be slower compared to thermophilic composting due to the reduced metabolic rates of mesophilic microbes.

Nitrogen losses: Lower temperatures may result in reduced volatilization of ammonia (NH₃), potentially leading to lower nitrogen losses [14]. However, prolonged composting periods can increase the risk of denitrification under anaerobic conditions, causing nitrogen loss as gaseous N₂ or N₂O [15].

(2) Thermophilic composting:

Microbial activity: Characterized by thermophilic microorganisms that thrive at temperatures above 50°C, leading to rapid decomposition of organic matter [16].

Nitrogen dynamics: Elevated temperatures accelerate ammonification, resulting in higher concentrations of ammonium (NH₄⁺). However, the activity of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) may be inhibited at high temperatures, potentially slowing down nitrification. For instance, studies have shown that the activity of ammonia monooxygenase (AMO), a key enzyme in nitrification, can be suppressed during the thermophilic phase [3].

Nitrogen losses: Increased temperatures can lead to significant NH₃ volatilization, resulting in nitrogen losses. Additionally, the rapid decomposition can create anaerobic microsites, promoting denitrification and further nitrogen loss [17, 18].

The nitrogen transformation mechanisms in mesophilic and thermophilic composting differ notably due to the temperature-dependent microbial activities. Mesophilic composting offers a more controlled nitrogen transformation with potentially lower nitrogen losses but at a slower rate. In contrast, thermophilic composting accelerates organic matter decomposition and nitrogen transformation but may incur higher nitrogen losses due to volatilization and denitrification.

We have incorporated this comparative analysis into the revised manuscript to provide a clearer understanding of how temperature regimes influence nitrogen dynamics during composting.

 

References

1. Maeda, K.; Hanajima, D.; Toyoda, S.; Yoshida, N.; Morioka, R.; Osada, T., Microbiology of nitrogen cycle in animal manure compost. Microbial Biotechnology 2011, 4, (6), 700-709.
2. Yang, X.; Mazarji, M.; Li, M.; Li, A.; Li, R.; Zhang, Z.; Pan, J., Mechanism of magnetite-assisted aerobic composting on the nitrogen cycle in pig manure. Bioresour Technol 2024, 391, (Pt A), 129985.
3. Tian, X.; Qin, W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Lyu, Q.; Chen, G.; Feng, Z.; Ji, G.; Yan, Z., The inoculation of thermophilic heterotrophic nitrifiers improved the efficiency and reduced ammonia emission during sewage sludge composting. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 479.
4. Wang, F.; Xie, L.; Gao, W.; Wu, D.; Chen, X.; Wei, Z., The role of microbiota during chicken manure and pig manure co-composting. Bioresource Technology 2023, 384.
5. Sharma, M.; Sharma, S.; Paavan; Gupta, M.; Goyal, S.; Talukder, D.; Akhtar, M. S.; Kumar, R.; Umar, A.; Alkhanjaf, A. A. M.; Baskoutas, S., Mechanisms of microbial resistance against cadmium – a review. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 2024, 22, (1), 13-30.
6. Pande, V.; Pandey, S. C.; Sati, D.; Bhatt, P.; Samant, M., Microbial Interventions in Bioremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminants in Agroecosystem. Front Microbiol 2022, 13, 824084.
7. Guo, H.-N.; Wang, L.-X.; Liu, H.-T., Potential mechanisms involving the immobilization of Cd, As and Cr during swine manure composting. Scientific Reports 2020, 10, (1).
8. Kitamura, R.; Kozaki, T.; Ishii, K.; Iigo, M.; Kurokura, T.; Yamane, K.; Maeda, I.; Iwabuchi, K.; Saito, T., Utilizing Cattle Manure Compost Increases Ammonia Monooxygenase A Gene Expression and Ammonia-oxidizing Activity of Both Bacteria and Archaea in Biofiltration Media for Ammonia Deodorization. Microbes Environ 2021, 36, (2).
9. Rynk, R.; Schwarz, M.; Richard, T. L.; Cotton, M.; Halbach, T.; Siebert, S., Chapter 4 - Compost feedstocks. In The Composting Handbook, Rynk, R., Ed. Academic Press: 2022; pp 103-157.
10. Reyes-Torres, M.; Oviedo-Ocaña, E. R.; Dominguez, I.; Komilis, D.; Sánchez, A., A systematic review on the composting of green waste: Feedstock quality and optimization strategies. Waste Management 2018, 77, 486-499.
11. Wang, J.; Li, Z.; Liu, F.; Han, K.; Ma, Q.; Wu, L., Membrane-covered systems improve compost quality and alter microbial communities during composting with microbial inoculation. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 447.
12. Simujide, H.; Aorigele, C.; Wang, C.-J.; Lina, M.; Manda, B., Microbial activities during mesophilic composting of manure and effect of calcium cyanamide addition. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 2013, 83, 139-144.
13. Tang, J.-C.; Shibata, A.; Zhou, Q.; Katayama, A., Effect of temperature on reaction rate and microbial community in composting of cattle manure with rice straw. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 2007, 104, (4), 321-328.
14. Martins, O.; Dewes, T., Loss of nitrogenous compounds during composting of animal wastes. Bioresource Technology 1992, 42, (2), 103-111.
15. Szanto, G. L.; Hamelers, H. V. M.; Rulkens, W. H.; Veeken, A. H. M., NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions during passively aerated composting of straw-rich pig manure. Bioresource Technology 2007, 98, (14), 2659-2670.
16. Yan, B.; Lan, T.; Lv, Y.; Xing, C.; Liang, Y.; Wang, H.; Wu, Q.; Guo, L.; Guo, W. Q., Enhancing simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus availability through biochar addition during Chinese medicinal herbal residues composting: Synergism of microbes and humus. Sci Total Environ 2024, 930, 172515.
17. Zheng, G.; Chen, A.; Wang, C.; Wei, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, R., Nitrogen retention driven by cooperative succession of bacterial communities through promoting nitrogen fixation and inhibiting denitrification during straw composting with amino acids addition. Environmental Technology & Innovation 2024, 34.
18. Tian, X.; Gao, R.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Pan, J.; Tang, K. H. D.; Scriber Ii, K. E.; Amoah, I. D.; Zhang, Z.; Li, R., Enhancing nitrogen conversion and microbial dynamics in swine manure composting process through inoculation with a microbial consortium. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023, 423.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is in line with the current trends in the search for optimal methods of waste composting and their subsequent use, which is an important element of sustainable resource management. The proposed research methods are well thought out and represent a high scientific level, which gives the work credibility.

The authors present the research results in a clear and accessible way, discuss them in detail, and refer to similar results obtained in the literature, which strengthens the argumentation and emphasizes their contribution to the development of knowledge in this field. 

The article is at a good substantive and linguistic level, which makes it a valuable contribution to research on composting. In the future, the authors could consider examining the effect of different doses of manure addition and their effect on the results of the composting process. Currently, there is a lack of data allowing for full demonstration of the significant importance of this addition on the obtained results, which could significantly enrich further analyses and conclusions. 

In the preparation of the results and their analyses, the authors use modern and up-to-date research tools, which increases the scientific value of the work. The use of modern analytical methods allows for precise presentation of data and reliable interpretation of the obtained results. This ensures that the research is in line with current standards in the field of composting and its results can provide a solid basis for further research and practical application.

Author Response

Reviewer #2: The article is in line with the current trends in the search for optimal methods of waste composting and their subsequent use, which is an important element of sustainable resource management. The proposed research methods are well thought out and represent a high scientific level, which gives the work credibility.

The authors present the research results in a clear and accessible way, discuss them in detail, and refer to similar results obtained in the literature, which strengthens the argumentation and emphasizes their contribution to the development of knowledge in this field.

The article is at a good substantive and linguistic level, which makes it a valuable contribution to research on composting. In the future, the authors could consider examining the effect of different doses of manure addition and their effect on the results of the composting process. Currently, there is a lack of data allowing for full demonstration of the significant importance of this addition on the obtained results, which could significantly enrich further analyses and conclusions.

In the preparation of the results and their analyses, the authors use modern and up-to-date research tools, which increases the scientific value of the work. The use of modern analytical methods allows for precise presentation of data and reliable interpretation of the obtained results. This ensures that the research is in line with current standards in the field of composting and its results can provide a solid basis for further research and practical application.

Response: Thank you for recognizing the value of our research. As you suggested, we plan to conduct more detailed studies on the effects of varying manure additions on the aerobic composting of straw to address gaps in the current literature. Combining cow manure with crop residues like straw or corn stalks is a common composting practice aimed at achieving an optimal carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio, enhancing microbial activity, and improving compost quality. A C/N ratio between 25:1 and 30:1 is typically recommended to support microbial activity and accelerate decomposition.

Existing studies have extensively explored the physicochemical properties of composting wheat straw with varying cow manure additions. For example, Gichangi et al. [1] reported that mixing cattle manure with organic materials at a ratio of 1:5 (amendment to cattle manure) facilitated efficient composting and produced a final product suitable for agricultural use. Research on the physicochemical properties of compost products derived from agricultural waste and manure spans areas such as feedstock ratios [2], fermentation processes [3], nutrient transformation [4], environmental friendliness, and product quality [5]. Additionally, studies on the relationship between microbial activity and environmental factors during wheat straw and cow manure composting include topics such as microbial community structure and function [6], ammonia volatilization [7], greenhouse gas emissions [8], soil quality, and ecological functionality [9].

Moving forward, we aim to further investigate these relationships to optimize the composting process, enhance composting efficiency, and achieve environmentally friendly and sustainable resource utilization.

 

References

1. Gichangi, E.; Karanja, N.; Wood, C. J. T.; Agroecosystems, S., Composting cattle manure from zero grazing system with agro-organic wastes to minimise nitrogen losses in smallholder farms in Kenya. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 2006, 6, (2), 57-64.
2. Chang, R.; Yao, Y.; Cao, W.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Chen, Q., Effects of composting and carbon based materials on carbon and nitrogen loss in the arable land utilization of cow manure and corn stalks. J Environ Manage 2019, 233, 283-290.
3. Jindo, K.; Sánchez-Monedero, M. A.; Hernández, T.; García, C.; Furukawa, T.; Matsumoto, K.; Sonoki, T.; Bastida, F., Biochar influences the microbial community structure during manure composting with agricultural wastes. Science of The Total Environment 2012, 416, 476-481.
4. Su, Y.; Xiong, J.; Fang, C.; Qu, H.; Han, L.; He, X.; Huang, G., Combined effects of amoxicillin and copper on nitrogen transformation and the microbial mechanisms during aerobic composting of cow manure. J Hazard Mater 2023, 455, 131569.
5. Macias-Corral, M.; Samani, Z.; Hanson, A.; Smith, G.; Funk, P.; Yu, H.; Longworth, J., Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure. Bioresource Technology 2008, 99, (17), 8288-8293.
6. Tian, X.; Qin, W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Lyu, Q.; Chen, G.; Feng, Z.; Ji, G.; Yan, Z., The inoculation of thermophilic heterotrophic nitrifiers improved the efficiency and reduced ammonia emission during sewage sludge composting. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 479.
7. Wang, B.; Zhang, P.; Guo, X.; Bao, X.; Tian, J.; Li, G.; Zhang, J., Contribution of zeolite to nitrogen retention in chicken manure and straw compost: Reduction of NH(3) and N(2)O emissions and increase of nitrate. Bioresour Technol 2024, 391, (Pt A), 129981.
8. Mengqi, Z.; Shi, A.; Ajmal, M.; Ye, L.; Awais, M., Comprehensive review on agricultural waste utilization and high-temperature fermentation and composting. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 2023, 13, (7), 5445-5468.
9. Chen, Z.; Xu, Y.; Castellano, M. J.; Fontaine, S.; Wang, W.; Ding, W., Soil Respiration Components and their Temperature Sensitivity Under Chemical Fertilizer and Compost Application: The Role of Nitrogen Supply and Compost Substrate Quality. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 2019, 124, (3), 556-571.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- Line  TN con- should be the full name, not an abbreviation. for the first time, please

2-Keywords: should be rearranged according to the alphabeticl order, please

3- The introduction is so long; that it should be more focused and concentrated. Also, where is the hypothesis? should be before the objective

4- This sentence in the introduction ( this study is of great significance for the resource utilization of agricultural waste through mesophilic aerobic composting, advancing the understanding of microecological mechanisms, and developing nitrogen retention technologies) should be removed to be with the hypothesis.

5- line 104 northern Anhui should specify the location exactly, please. 

6- line 102  Composting design: The authors in this section did not mention any references. Why?

7- In general, I would prefer the authors use manure rather than dung.

8- Line 234 Please do not start your sentence with an abbreviation such as EC

9- In line 145, do you mean ammonia nitrogen (NH₄N) or NH₃-N?

10- the results & discussion section looks exciting, but in my point of view, the authors should shorten this part and be more focused on their findings.

4+-N

9r

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English looks good 

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

1- Line TN con- should be the full name, not an abbreviation. for the first time, please.

Response: "TN" is the abbreviation of total nitrogen. We have marked it when it first appeared on page 1, line 43.

 

2-Keywords: should be rearranged according to the alphabeticl order, please

Response: Thank you for the reminder. We have reordered the keywords alphabetically. (page 1, lines 21-22)

 

3- The introduction is so long; that it should be more focused and concentrated. Also, where is the hypothesis? should be before the objective

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful suggestions. We understand your concern and agree that a more concise and focused introduction would enhance the readability of the manuscript. Therefore, we have revised the introduction to streamline the content, ensuring it is more directly aligned with the main objectives of the study.

We recognize the importance of presenting the hypothesis clearly and early in the manuscript. We have now explicitly stated the hypothesis and positioned it before the objectives, as per your recommendation.

 

4- This sentence in the introduction ( this study is of great significance for the resource utilization of agricultural waste through mesophilic aerobic composting, advancing the understanding of microecological mechanisms, and developing nitrogen retention technologies) should be removed to be with the hypothesis.

Response: We agree that this statement would be more appropriate when presented alongside the hypothesis to ensure logical flow and better alignment with the manuscript's structure. Accordingly, we have removed the sentence from the introduction and incorporated it into the section where the hypothesis is introduced. We hope this adjustment addresses your concern and contributes to a more cohesive presentation of the manuscript.

 

5- line 104 northern Anhui should specify the location exactly, please.

Response: The wheat straw used in this study was collected from farmland in Funan County, Fuyang City, Anhui Province. We have specified the location in the manuscript. (Line 80)

 

6- line 102 Composting design: The authors in this section did not mention any references. Why?

Response: We have carefully reevaluated the content of the Materials and Methods section. The Composting Design subsection primarily introduces our self-designed composting system. The initial carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio of 25 was adjusted based on previous studies, which we have now cited in the manuscript.

 

 7- In general, I would prefer the authors use manure rather than dung.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced all instances of "dung" with "manure" in the manuscript.

 

8- Line 234 Please do not start your sentence with an abbreviation such as EC

Response: We have revised the sentence to avoid beginning with an abbreviation while maintaining the intended meaning. Additionally, we have thoroughly checked the manuscript to prevent similar errors.

 

9- In line 145, do you mean ammonia nitrogen (NH₄-N) or NH₃-N?

Response: Thank you for the reminder. We have rechecked the method for ammonia nitrogen detection, which uses the salicylate spectrophotometric method (HJ 536—2009) to measure ammonia and ammonium ions. Therefore, the term "ammonia nitrogen" refers to NH₃-N. We have corrected all incorrect notations in the manuscript.

 

10- the results & discussion section looks exciting, but in my point of view, the authors should shorten this part and be more focused on their findings.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback on the Results & Discussion section and for highlighting its strengths. We truly appreciate your suggestion to make this section more concise and focused. In response, we have carefully reviewed the Results & Discussion section and streamlined the content by removing less critical details while emphasizing our key findings. These revisions aim to enhance the clarity and impact of the section, aligning it more closely with the manuscript's objectives. We are grateful for your thoughtful suggestions and hope the revised section meets your expectations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf