Synergies of Automated Charging and Vehicle-to-Grid: Structured Assessment of the Potential of Automated Electric Vehicle Charging for Grid Stabilization Across Various Use Cases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Table 4, "vehicle customization degree" is assigned the highest weight of 42%. As a sustainability study, readers may pay more attention to the contribution of V2G to the power grid or its cost-effectiveness. The authors are requested to further elaborate in Section 3.1 or 4.1 on the logical background behind the expert panel assigning such a high weight—whether this is because the biggest obstacle to the popularization of automated charging currently lies in the standardized transformation on the vehicle side.

In Table 4, "vehicle customization degree" is assigned the highest weight of 42%. As a sustainability study, readers may pay more attention to the contribution of V2G to the power grid or its cost-effectiveness. The authors are requested to further elaborate in Section 3.1 or 4.1 on the logical background behind the expert panel assigning such a high weight—whether this is because the biggest obstacle to the popularization of automated charging currently lies in the standardized transformation on the vehicle side.

The text mentions "a group of experts with diverse scientific backgrounds" (Line 402). It is recommended to clearly specify the number of experts, their field distribution, and how consistency in scoring is achieved, so as to enhance the credibility of the research.

The topic is highly relevant and forward-looking, focusing on automated EV charging and V2G for grid stability, with clear practical value for infrastructure planning.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is clear, grammatically correct, and academically sound; only minor polishing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable review and for taking the time to carefully evaluate our manuscript. We highly appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions. We have addressed the raised points to the best of our ability in the revised version of the manuscript and believe that these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, quality, and scientific positioning of the paper. We sincerely thank you for your helpful feedback and contribution to strengthening this work.

In the following, we address the comments point by point and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 1: In Table 4, "vehicle customization degree" is assigned the highest weight of 42%. As a sustainability study, readers may pay more attention to the contribution of V2G to the power grid or its cost-effectiveness. The authors are requested to further elaborate in Section 3.1 or 4.1 on the logical background behind the expert panel assigning such a high weight—whether this is because the biggest obstacle to the popularization of automated charging currently lies in the standardized transformation on the vehicle side.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We fully understand that, in the context of sustainability and V2G research, readers may initially expect criteria such as grid support or cost-effectiveness to receive the highest weighting.

However, the high weighting of the criterion “vehicle customization degree” directly reflects the consensus of the expert panel and highlights what was identified as the most critical barrier to the large-scale deployment of automated charging technologies. In particular, the experts emphasized that technologies requiring significant modifications on the vehicle side would strongly hinder market adoption, as they would depend on internationally standardized interfaces and broad agreement among OEMs to ensure interoperability across vehicle fleets.

Furthermore, extensive vehicle modifications may not only increase economic costs, but can also negatively affect sustainability if existing vehicles become incompatible with future charging technologies and require premature replacement. From the experts’ perspective, minimizing vehicle-side customization is therefore a key prerequisite for scalable and sustainable implementation.

Nevertheless, to address the sensitivity of the results with respect to the weighting scheme, we additionally conducted an analysis using equal weights for all criteria. The corresponding results and their implications are discussed in the Discussion section and presented in Figure 4.

 

Comment 2: The text mentions "a group of experts with diverse scientific backgrounds" (Line 402). It is recommended to clearly specify the number of experts, their field distribution, and how consistency in scoring is achieved, so as to enhance the credibility of the research.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. The requested information has been stated more clearly in the revised manuscript and can be found in section 3.2.

Comment 3: The topic is highly relevant and forward-looking, focusing on automated EV charging and V2G for grid stability, with clear practical value for infrastructure planning.

Response 3: Thank you very much for this positive and encouraging feedback. We highly appreciate your recognition of the relevance and practical value of the presented work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the interaction between automated EV charging and V2G. The key contribution, a weighted point rating system combined with AHP, is not enough for the complexity of the problem. This method relies heavily on subjective expert judgments rather than measurable system performance. 

Currently, infrastructure is treated at a high, qualitative level, without considering key factors such as capacity, utilization, grid constraints, and control strategies. I’d refer to recent studies such as:  Loaiza-Quintana et al.  A Robust Optimization Framework for eBus Charging Infrastructure Planning. Journal of Heuristics. For a recent  detailed and quantitative treatment of a quite related problem.

A major weakness is the complete absence of quantitative modeling or simulation. The paper does not model energy flows, grid constraints, charging demand, or temporal dynamics, all of which are essential for evaluating V2G systems. Instead, it reduces complex interactions to qualitative ratings such as “high” or “low,” which are then mapped to numerical scores . This simplification undermines the validity of any claims regarding grid-supportive charging.

The weighting scheme introduces a strong and unjustified bias. The “degree of vehicle customization” is assigned 42% of the total weight, dominating all other criteria, including costs and operational factors . This effectively predetermines the outcome in favor of technologies that require minimal retrofitting. The paper does not provide sufficient justification for this weighting, nor does it explore alternative weight configurations in a systematic way.

The definition and evaluation of V2G capability are fundamentally flawed. The study treats V2G potential as a function of connection duration and infrastructure type, ignoring temporal aspects such as load profiles, renewable generation variability, and market signals . Without incorporating time-dependent behavior, the assessment of V2G is superficial and does not reflect real-world system performance.

The scenario design isn’t clear enough. Use-case groups are defined qualitatively, with vague descriptors (e.g., “very high to medium” parking spaces), and no concrete numerical parameters are provided . This makes it impossible to independently reproduce or verify the assessments. Moreover, the aggregation of diverse use cases into broad categories risks masking important differences and leads to overgeneralized conclusions.

Findings such as the superiority of long-duration parking for V2G or the reduced effectiveness under high time pressure are well-known and follow directly from the assumptions embedded in the model . The study does not generate new insights but rather confirms expected outcomes through a subjective scoring framework.

The presentation of results suggests a level of precision that is not justified by the methodology. Final scores are reported with decimal accuracy and used to rank alternatives, despite being derived from coarse qualitative inputs . This creates a misleading impression of quantitative rigor and may lead readers to overinterpret the significance of small differences.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable review and for taking the time to carefully evaluate our manuscript. We highly appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions. We have addressed the raised points to the best of our ability in the revised version of the manuscript and believe that these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, quality, and scientific positioning of the paper. We sincerely thank you for your helpful feedback and contribution to strengthening this work.

In the following, we address the comments point by point and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: The paper addresses the interaction between automated EV charging and V2G. The key contribution, a weighted point rating system combined with AHP, is not enough for the complexity of the problem. This method relies heavily on subjective expert judgments rather than measurable system performance. 

Currently, infrastructure is treated at a high, qualitative level, without considering key factors such as capacity, utilization, grid constraints, and control strategies. I’d refer to recent studies such as:  Loaiza-Quintana et al.  A Robust Optimization Framework for eBus Charging Infrastructure Planning. Journal of Heuristics. For a recent  detailed and quantitative treatment of a quite related problem.

A major weakness is the complete absence of quantitative modeling or simulation. The paper does not model energy flows, grid constraints, charging demand, or temporal dynamics, all of which are essential for evaluating V2G systems. Instead, it reduces complex interactions to qualitative ratings such as “high” or “low,” which are then mapped to numerical scores . This simplification undermines the validity of any claims regarding grid-supportive charging.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We fully agree with the assessment that a comprehensive evaluation of the benefits and impacts of V2G generally requires a simulation-based approach, particularly when effects such as grid stabilization, renewable energy integration, or infrastructure utilization are to be quantified. In fact, we have already conducted several quantitative simulation studies in this field and developed and published corresponding software solutions for the analysis of V2G systems.

However, the scope of the present study differs from such simulation-based analyses. The objective of this paper is not to demonstrate the general feasibility or benefits of V2G itself, as this has already been extensively addressed in previous work, including our own research. Instead, this study focuses on a forward-looking perspective in which automated charging and automated driving technologies become increasingly relevant. In this context, the aim is to provide an initial structured assessment of the complexity arising from the interaction between different automated charging technologies, use cases, and sustainability-related aspects such as V2G capability.

We acknowledge that all investigated technology–use case combinations could, in principle, also be evaluated quantitatively using detailed simulations. However, such an approach would require substantial modeling effort for each individual combination and would not necessarily provide additional value for the specific exploratory research question addressed in this paper. Therefore, we intentionally selected a qualitative multi-criteria assessment methodology to identify and compare promising technology–use case combinations at an early stage.

We see this study as a basis for identifying particularly promising scenarios for future in-depth investigations. Correspondingly, we have revised the introduction to clarify the scope and objectives of the paper more explicitly, and we have added simulation-based analyses as an outlook for future research in the conclusion.

 

Comment 2: The weighting scheme introduces a strong and unjustified bias. The “degree of vehicle customization” is assigned 42% of the total weight, dominating all other criteria, including costs and operational factors . This effectively predetermines the outcome in favor of technologies that require minimal retrofitting. The paper does not provide sufficient justification for this weighting, nor does it explore alternative weight configurations in a systematic way.

Response 2: We fully understand that the comparatively high weighting of the criterion “degree of vehicle customization” stands out and may appear to dominate the assessment. However, this weighting directly reflects the expert evaluations obtained within the study. Across the participating experts, vehicle modification requirements were consistently identified as the most critical barrier to large-scale implementation of automated charging technologies.

The experts particularly emphasized that technologies requiring substantial vehicle modifications would strongly hinder market adoption, as they would require internationally accepted standards and broad agreement among OEMs to ensure interoperability across vehicle fleets. Without such standardization, the scalability and practical usability of these technologies would remain limited. In addition, retrofitting or modifying existing vehicles is associated with considerable economic effort and may also negatively affect sustainability if vehicles become obsolete prematurely due to incompatibility with future charging technologies.

At the same time, we acknowledge that such weightings inherently contain subjective elements. However, this subjectivity is an explicit and intended aspect of the chosen methodology, as the study is designed as an expert-based multi-criteria assessment. The resulting weighting therefore represents a key outcome of the expert evaluation rather than an assumption imposed by the authors.

Nevertheless, to address the sensitivity of the results with respect to the weighting scheme, we additionally conducted an analysis using equal weights for all criteria. The corresponding results and their implications are discussed in the Discussion section and presented in Figure 4.

 

Comment 3: The definition and evaluation of V2G capability are fundamentally flawed. The study treats V2G potential as a function of connection duration and infrastructure type, ignoring temporal aspects such as load profiles, renewable generation variability, and market signals . Without incorporating time-dependent behavior, the assessment of V2G is superficial and does not reflect real-world system performance.

The scenario design isn’t clear enough. Use-case groups are defined qualitatively, with vague descriptors (e.g., “very high to medium” parking spaces), and no concrete numerical parameters are provided . This makes it impossible to independently reproduce or verify the assessments. Moreover, the aggregation of diverse use cases into broad categories risks masking important differences and leads to overgeneralized conclusions.

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable comment. As outlined above, the scope of this study was not to quantitatively evaluate the general impacts or system-level benefits of V2G operation. We fully agree that a detailed assessment of real-world V2G performance requires the consideration of temporal dynamics such as load profiles, renewable generation variability, market conditions, and grid constraints.

At the same time, both the existing literature and the reviewer’s own observation in the paragraph below indicate that, on a higher level of abstraction, the flexibility provided by EV fleets is fundamentally linked to two key factors: the duration of vehicle connection and the characteristics of the charging infrastructure. Before the actual value of this flexibility can be quantified, it must first be assessed under which technological and operational conditions such flexibility can generally be made available.

The objective of this study was therefore to investigate precisely this preliminary question by comparing automated charging technologies and use cases with respect to their suitability for enabling grid-supportive charging and V2G integration. For this exploratory purpose, the selected abstraction level was considered appropriate.

We acknowledge that the use cases are intentionally described in a generalized and qualitative manner. However, since the study is based on an expert assessment rather than a quantitative simulation approach, this abstraction was deliberately chosen to facilitate a consistent and intuitive understanding of the scenarios among the participating experts. Introducing highly detailed numerical parameters for each scenario would have significantly increased complexity without necessarily improving the quality of the expert evaluation for the specific research question addressed here.

Nevertheless, we agree that the chosen method based on subjective expert ratings inherently limits reproducibility. Therefore we described the character and scope of the study more explicitly in the revised manuscript (Lines 141ff).

 

Comment 4: Findings such as the superiority of long-duration parking for V2G or the reduced effectiveness under high time pressure are well-known and follow directly from the assumptions embedded in the model . The study does not generate new insights but rather confirms expected outcomes through a subjective scoring framework.

Response 4: We agree that the general relationship between connection duration, time pressure, and V2G potential is already well understood and follows logically from the underlying assumptions.

However, the objective of this study was not to quantitatively reassess the general benefits of V2G, but rather to investigate the interaction between different automated charging technologies, use cases, and grid-supportive charging concepts. The contribution of the paper therefore lies in the structured comparison of technology–use case combinations and the identification of promising configurations for future automated mobility and energy systems.

As intended by the chosen expert-based and exploratory methodology, the study provides a qualitative early-stage assessment rather than a detailed quantitative system analysis. We clarified this scope and positioning more explicitly in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 5: The presentation of results suggests a level of precision that is not justified by the methodology. Final scores are reported with decimal accuracy and used to rank alternatives, despite being derived from coarse qualitative inputs . This creates a misleading impression of quantitative rigor and may lead readers to overinterpret the significance of small differences.

Response 5: Thank you for this comment. The reported scores directly result from the applied weighted point rating methodology and the corresponding calculations based on the expert assessments. While rounding of the final values would have been possible, we intentionally decided to present the calculated results without modification.

At the same time, we fully acknowledge that the study is based on a qualitative and expert-driven methodology. Since this is clearly stated throughout the manuscript, we do not believe that the presented numerical values create an unjustified level of quantitative precision. Nevertheless, to avoid potential misinterpretation, we further clarified the qualitative and exploratory character of the study in the revised introduction and emphasized the intended interpretation of the results more explicitly (Lines 63 ff).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents the combination of automated charging technology and use case studies to investigate their respect potentials for grid-supportive charging, using a weighted point rating system.

1. The term “final value” has been used frequently, however, this phrase if confusing in your research context. If it means the final rating scores, please just use a clarified term to prevent confusion. In addition, also explain this term.
2. How do “no time pressure”, “slight time pressure” and “intense time pressure” quantified?
3. So this study is conducted though a questionnaire survey or interview? The basic method information should be provided like how many respondents, and how the data are validated
4. In Figure 2, it compares various costs and wait time across all scenarios, are these also based on interview? If so, then the results are very subjective.
5. The writing needs professional proofreading, e.g., “use case” sounds very weird, “case study” is more appropriate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable review and for taking the time to carefully evaluate our manuscript. We highly appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions. We have addressed the raised points to the best of our ability in the revised version of the manuscript and believe that these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, quality, and scientific positioning of the paper. We sincerely thank you for your helpful feedback and contribution to strengthening this work.

In the following, we address the comments point by point and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the revised manuscript.

 

1. The term “final value” has been used frequently, however, this phrase if confusing in your research context. If it means the final rating scores, please just use a clarified term to prevent confusion. In addition, also explain this term.
• Thank you for this comment. We consider the term “final value” to be appropriate in the context of the applied methodology. However, we agree that the meaning of the term may not have been sufficiently clear. Therefore, we revised the corresponding section to better explain that the “final value” represents the aggregated overall rating score used for comparing and ranking the technology–use case combinations (Lines 250ff).
2. How do “no time pressure”, “slight time pressure” and “intense time pressure” quantified?
• The classification of “no time pressure”, “slight time pressure”, and “intense time pressure” is explained in Table 2 through the corresponding use-case descriptions. As the study follows an exploratory expert-based methodology rather than a quantitative simulation approach, we intentionally used generalized ranges instead of exact numerical thresholds. This abstraction was considered beneficial for ensuring a consistent and intuitive assessment across different technologies and use cases.
3. So this study is conducted though a questionnaire survey or interview? The basic method information should be provided like how many respondents, and how the data are validated
• Thank you for this comment. The requested information can be found in section 3.2.
4. In Figure 2, it compares various costs and wait time across all scenarios, are these also based on interview? If so, then the results are very subjective.
• Thank you for this comment. Figure 2 does not present absolute costs or measured waiting times, but rather the relative assessments resulting from the expert-based evaluation methodology described in this study. Accordingly, the displayed values are based on expert judgments and therefore inherently contain subjective elements. However, this subjectivity is an intentional characteristic of the chosen exploratory multi-criteria assessment approach and is explicitly addressed throughout the manuscript.
5. The writing needs professional proofreading, e.g., “use case” sounds very weird, “case study” is more appropriate.
• Thank you for this feedback; however, we respectfully disagree with this point. While a case study refers to the empirical analysis of a specific example or application, a use case describes a generic or conceptual scenario of possible application. In the present study, we do not investigate specific existing cases empirically, but rather explore possible combinations of technological options and their potential configurations. For this reason, the term use cases is appropriate and used intentionally.
• Regarding the language quality, we believe the manuscript is written in adequate English, a view that also appears to be shared by the other two reviewers, who did not raise concerns in this regard. Nevertheless, we appreciate the comment and, as a precaution, we will have the revised manuscript reviewed by native English speakers prior to resubmission.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is of practical relevance. It integrates automated charging technologies, vehicle-to-grid (V2G), and different vehicle use cases, and compares them using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a weighted scoring method. The overall structure is relatively clear. The following revisions are recommended:

 

1. The Introduction provides background information on automated charging, V2G, and smart charging. However, it does not sufficiently clarify the novel contribution of this study compared with previous research on automated charging technology assessment, V2G use-case evaluation, or multi-criteria decision-making. The authors are therefore advised to add a systematic comparison with the existing literature.
2. The title uses the term “Systematic Assessment.” However, Sections 2 and 3 merely state that the technologies and use cases were identified through a literature review, brainstorming, and expert opinions. No information is provided regarding the databases searched, search keywords, search period, inclusion and exclusion criteria, or screening procedure. Therefore, the current study is more accurately described as a structured expert assessment rather than a systematic assessment in the strict sense. The authors are advised to provide a more detailed description of the process used to identify and select the technologies and use cases.
3. Table 5 uses vague qualitative descriptions, such as “very high to medium” and “high to low,” to characterize the number of parking spaces and average vehicle throughput. Such descriptions make it difficult for other researchers to reproduce the expert assessments. For example, the category “parking without time pressure” includes airport long-term parking, hotel parking, and residential parking, although these scenarios differ substantially in fleet size, connection duration, load profiles, and distribution-grid capacity.
4. Section 3.2 presents the aggregated pairwise comparison matrix and the consistency value, but it does not explain how the judgment matrices of the six experts were combined. In AHP-based group decision-making, the authors should specify whether the geometric mean or another aggregation method was used.
5. The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes resource efficiency, reduced production of stationary batteries, and environmental sustainability. However, the actual assessment criteria mainly cover costs, waiting time, vehicle modification, standardization, and V2G capability, without directly evaluating environmental impacts.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough review of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in the evaluation of our work. All comments have been carefully considered and addressed in the revised manuscript. A detailed point-by-point response is provided below.

 

Comment 1

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently highlight the scientific contribution of this work in relation to the existing literature.

To address this comment, we revised the Introduction. We added a brief discussion of previous research covering reviews of automated charging technologies, studies on smart charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G), and applications of multi-criteria decision-making approaches in electric mobility. Based on this literature overview, we now explicitly point out the research gap and clarify how the present work differs from previous studies. The new section can be found in lines 58ff.

 

Comment 2

We appreciate the reviewer's observation and agree that the term systematic assessment could be interpreted as implying a formal systematic literature review.

To better reflect the methodology employed in this study, we changed the title from “Systematic Assessment” to “Structured Assessment.”

In addition, we expanded the introduction by describing the structured selection process used to identify the technologies and representative vehicle use cases. The revised manuscript now explains that the selection was based on a structured review of relevant literature and technical reports, followed by internal workshops and brainstorming sessions, and finally validated by six experts from academia and industry. We also explicitly clarify that the objective was to identify representative technologies and application scenarios for comparative assessment rather than to conduct a formal systematic literature review. The added paragraph can be found in lies 93ff.

 

Comment 3

We thank the reviewer for this important comment.

The qualitative classifications used in Table 5 were intentionally selected to support the expert-based assessment and to ensure a consistent comparison across generalized application classes. Since the objective of this study is to evaluate representative use-case categories rather than individual real-world sites, introducing fixed numerical thresholds would unnecessarily reduce the generality of the assessment while providing little additional value. Characteristics such as parking duration and relative parking capacity are therefore intentionally represented by qualitative categories that allow experts to focus on the operational characteristics distinguishing the different application classes.

To clarify this methodological decision, we added an explanatory paragraph immediately after Table 5 in lines 246ff.

 

Comment 4

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission.

The revised manuscript now explicitly states in lines 286ff that the individual pairwise comparison matrices were aggregated using the geometric mean. We additionally clarify that all experts were assigned equal importance and that the aggregated matrix served as the basis for calculating both the final criteria weights and the reported consistency ratio.

 

 Comment 5

We appreciate this helpful comment.

We agree that the presented assessment does not directly quantify environmental impacts. However, the objective of this study is to evaluate the technical, operational, and economic suitability of automated charging technologies for different vehicle applications. By identifying technologies that are particularly suitable for reliable vehicle-to-grid (V2G) integration, the proposed assessment framework provides an important basis for realizing the environmental and resource-efficiency benefits associated with V2G. To clarify this distinction, we added a short paragraph to the Discussion section in lines 409ff emphasizing that the direct assessment of sustainability impacts is beyond the scope of the present work.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not properly address the main concerns raised in the review. The paper is now framed a bit more as an exploratory and expert-based study, the current version still neglects the importance of quantitative system behavior for evaluating automated charging and V2G integration. The assessment continues to rely primarily on subjective scoring without considering operational dynamics, grid constraints, or temporal charging behavior. As a result, the revisions clarify the scope of the work but do not substantially improve the scientific rigor of the framework or its conclusions. In addition, the discussion of related quantitative literature, including the charging location problem remains limited (please see the original review).

Author Response

Thank you for your additional comments and for taking the time to review the revised manuscript.

We acknowledge your position and agree that quantitative, simulation-based analyses are essential for evaluating the detailed operational impacts of V2G, including grid constraints, temporal charging behavior, renewable energy integration, and system-level performance. In fact, we share this view and have conducted and published several simulation-based studies on these topics ourselves.

However, as we have attempted to clarify throughout the revision process, the objective of the present work is fundamentally different. This study was intentionally designed as an exploratory, expert-based assessment aimed at identifying and comparing promising combinations of automated charging technologies, use cases, and V2G-related requirements. The chosen methodology reflects this objective and was selected from the outset to provide a structured qualitative evaluation of an emerging and still highly uncertain field.

We fully recognize that a simulation-based approach would provide a different level of detail and answer different research questions. However, incorporating detailed operational modeling for all investigated technology–use case combinations would effectively require a fundamentally different study design and is therefore beyond the scope of the present work.

For this reason, our revisions focused on more clearly defining the scope, limitations, and intended contribution of the study, as well as positioning it as a complementary step that can help identify promising cases for future quantitative investigations.

Nevertheless, we appreciate your perspective and remain grateful for your comments. Should there be additional suggestions regarding the presentation, interpretation, or framing of the current expert-based approach, we would be pleased to consider them.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My previous comments have been addressed

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive assessment and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your constructive feedback throughout the review process. Your comments and suggestions have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript, and we are pleased that the revisions have satisfactorily addressed your concerns. We sincerely thank you for your valuable contribution.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues have been resolved and can be accepted.