Transition of CO2 from Emissions to Sequestration During Chemical Weathering of Ultramafic and Mafic Mine Tailings
, Shen Liu 4, Tim T. Werner 5, Feng Jiang 2, Yinger Deng 1 and Amogh Mudbhatkal 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the paper, the term CO2 degassing has been used. I suggest using the term CO2 emissions instead.
There are grammatical mistakes in the paper, the authors need to proof read the text for English (e.g. Line 238).
Figures should only be presented after introducing them in the text. For example, Figure 1 is presented before the introduction in the Study area section.
Line 48-49: Very important papers in the field have covered and discussed chemical weathering which the concept is presented in this section. Those papers have not been acknowledged in here. I suggest authors refer to the papers and cite in this section. Examples of the papers are provided in here:
Manning, D. A. C.; Renforth, P. Passive sequestration of atmospheric CO2 through coupled plant-mineral reactions in urban soils. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47, 135–141.
Jorat, M.E., Kraavi, K.E., Manning, D.A.C. (2022). Removal of atmospheric CO2 by engineered soils in infrastructure projects. Journal of Environmental Management. 314, 115016.
Washbourne, C. L.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Renforth, P.; Ascough, P. L.; Manning, D. A. C. Rapid removal of atmospheric CO2 by urban soils. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (9), 5434-5440.
Jo, H. K.; McPherson, G. E. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of Environmental Management 1995, 45 (2), 109-133.
In section 2 Study area, it would be important to point out if there are any existing repurposing routes for the mining by-products. At the moment, the section suggests that all of the byproducts go to landfills, is there any other pathways for the products at the moment?
In section 3.1. although location and number of samples per mine was identified, there is no explanation on the method used for sampling. How did the authors choose their sampling location and which methodology for sampling they followed? This needs to be mentioned.
In section 3.2. Why storing temperature of 4 degrees was chosen? Wasn’t it better to freeze the samples to halt biological activities?
Line 158-159. This sentence does not make sense to a large number of your readers. You first need to define what NBS is (i.e., National Bureau of Standards (NBS)) and give a bit of context what the mean value is good for? What is the purpose this mean value? Why do you need to report it in your paper? How does it help your results?
Section 4. What are the standard division values for all the parameters measured? Please report them as it would make comparisons more meaningful.
Line 162-163: How did the authors measure the temperature? I suppose this must have been done in-situ, in which case this must be mentioned in the paper.
Figure 2. What are the dashed lines and how were they created? The authors would need to make this clear.
Figure 3. This figure is not well designed. In Fig 3a, half of the carbonate is above 100 HCO3/Na, hence for benefit of measurements, the upper boundary of the carbonates cannot be determined as your axis margin only goes up to 100. Fig 3a and 3b are attached together and 0.1 HCO3/Na appears to be maximum value of the Y-axis in Fig.3b and minimum value of Y-axis in Fig.3a. The authors need to detach the two graphs and present them with a space (similar to Figure 3b and 3c). Also, what is Stoichiometry ratio? Figure 3c is the only place in the whole of the paper that this is discussed. The authors need to provide a brief, at least in the results or methods on what this ratio is and how it is calculated.
Line 317, Who recommended HCO3-/SO42- recommended value of two? Authors need to reference this.
Section 5 discussions: There are a lot of mixed methodology, results and discussions in this section. When a section is named as discussion, then only discussion points need to be provided. For example, what assumptions used for data presented is methodology and presenting results should be done in results section. I suggest authors to go through this section and move information unrelated to discussion to their relevant sections.
Figure 4. What is the title of the figure’s Y axis? Not clear what the percentages are.
Line 377, what is Saturation Index? Give some context for your readers who are not familiar with this term.
Section 5.4.2. To calculate sequestered CO2 in tailing ponds, the authored presented a series of equations 5-7. It would be good to have a reference to the equations. Also as the authors have conducted ICP-OES, it would be good to see if extrapolation of sequestered inorganic carbon would give similar number to the method that the authors have used to calculated the sequestered CO2.
Line 452-454: Sequestration rates can be calculated with a great degree of confidence from inorganic carbon content. I highly recommend the authors to try this method.
Figure 5. How did the author arrive at the dashed line which represents boundary between CO2 emissions and absorption? How this threshold was defined?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some grammatical mistakes in the paper, I suggest to proof read the text for English.
Author Response
Comments: In the paper, the term CO2 degassing has been used. I suggest using the term CO2 emissions instead.
Response: Thanks, I have replaced it.
Comments: There are grammatical mistakes in the paper, the authors need to proof read the text for English (e.g. Line 238).
Response: Thank you, we have revised the grammar of the language.
Comments: Figures should only be presented after introducing them in the text. For example, Figure 1 is presented before the introduction in the Study area section.
Response: Thank you, we adjusted the order of the figures and they are presented after introducing them in the text.
Comments: Line 48-49: Very important papers in the field have covered and discussed chemical weathering which the concept is presented in this section. Those papers have not been acknowledged in here. I suggest authors refer to the papers and cite in this section. Examples of the papers are provided in here:
Manning, D. A. C.; Renforth, P. Passive sequestration of atmospheric CO2 through coupled plant-mineral reactions in urban soils. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47, 135–141.Jorat, M.E., Kraavi, K.E., Manning, D.A.C. (2022). Removal of atmospheric CO2 by engineered soils in infrastructure projects. Journal of Environmental Management. 314, 115016.
Washbourne, C. L.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Renforth, P.; Ascough, P. L.; Manning, D. A. C. . Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (9), 5434-5440.
Jo, H. K.; McPherson, G. E. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of Environmental Management 1995, 45 (2), 109-133.
Response: Thank you, we have added the relevant literatures in the manuscript. This research does have some implications for the absorption of CO2 by weathering of basic rocks. It is necessary to improve our research.
Comments: In section 2 Study area, it would be important to point out if there are any existing repurposing routes for the mining by-products. At the moment, the section suggests that all of the byproducts go to landfills, is there any other pathways for the products at the moment?
Response: Thank you. Basic tailings have many uses. For example, as roadbed landfill, and then weathering into minerals. We have added the reusage in the Section 2.
Comments: In section 3.1. although location and number of samples per mine was identified, there is no explanation on the method used for sampling. How did the authors choose their sampling location and which methodology for sampling they followed? This needs to be mentioned.
Response: Thanks, we have illustrated the identification in other paper, and it briefly detailed in Lines 125 to 128. We think this is not the main part in this study.
Comments: In section 3.2. Why storing temperature of 4 degrees was chosen? Wasn’t it better to freeze the samples to halt biological activities?
Response: Thanks, allowing samples to freeze will cause them to expand in volume and damage the vial.
Comments: Line 158-159. This sentence does not make sense to a large number of your readers. You first need to define what NBS is (i.e., National Bureau of Standards (NBS)) and give a bit of context what the mean value is good for? What is the purpose this mean value? Why do you need to report it in your paper? How does it help your results?
Response: Thank you, we have revised the paper.
Comments: Section 4. What are the standard division values for all the parameters measured? Please report them as it would make comparisons more meaningful.
Response: Thank you, we have revised the paper.
Comments: Line 162-163: How did the authors measure the temperature? I suppose this must have been done in-situ, in which case this must be mentioned in the paper.
Response: Thank you, it was measured in-situ in the field work. We add the related description in the paper.
Comments: Figure 2. What are the dashed lines and how were they created? The authors would need to make this clear.
Response: Thank you, indeed, we feel the dashed lines exhibit confusion for the readers. Therefore, we described it in the Figure name to make it clearer.
The dashed lines represent: The overall change trend of ion content in tailings leachate.
Comments: Figure 3. This figure is not well designed. In Fig 3a, half of the carbonate is above 100 HCO3/Na, hence for benefit of measurements, the upper boundary of the carbonates cannot be determined as your axis margin only goes up to 100. Fig 3a and 3b are attached together and 0.1 HCO3/Na appears to be maximum value of the Y-axis in Fig.3b and minimum value of Y-axis in Fig.3a. The authors need to detach the two graphs and present them with a space (similar to Figure 3b and 3c). Also, what is Stoichiometry ratio? Figure 3c is the only place in the whole of the paper that this is discussed. The authors need to provide a brief, at least in the results or methods on what this ratio is and how it is calculated.
Response: Thank you, we have revised in the paper. We have corrected it.
In chemistry, a stoichiometric ratio refers to the quantitative relationship between the amounts of reactants and products in a balanced chemical equation. It's essentially the ratio of the coefficients of the substances involved in the reaction.
We apologize for our carelessness in not specifically describing the sources of Figure 3a and 3b in the paper. The marked version can be visible in line 310 and line 376.
Comments: Section 5 discussions: There are a lot of mixed methodology, results and discussions in this section. When a section is named as discussion, then only discussion points need to be provided. For example, what assumptions used for data presented is methodology and presenting results should be done in results section. I suggest authors to go through this section and move information unrelated to discussion to their relevant sections.
Response: Thank you. We have carefully revised section 5 and adjusted the parts that are not relevant to the discussion.
Comments: Figure 4. What is the title of the figure’s Y axis? Not clear what the percentages are.
Response: Thank you. We have corrected the Y axis.
Line 377, what is Saturation Index? Give some context for your readers who are not familiar with this term.
Response: Thank you. We believe that the saturation index is a widely known parameter. Therefore, we do not recommend further interpretation of the saturation index.
Comments: Section 5.4.2. To calculate sequestered CO2 in tailing ponds, the authored presented a series of equations 5-7. It would be good to have a reference to the equations. Also as the authors have conducted ICP-OES, it would be good to see if extrapolation of sequestered inorganic carbon would give similar number to the method that the authors have used to calculated the sequestered CO2.
Response: Thank you. We cited the references for the equations 5-7.
The concentration of inorganic carbon was measured by the Gran titration method (see Lines 164-165).
Comments: Line 452-454: Sequestration rates can be calculated with a great degree of confidence from inorganic carbon content. I highly recommend the authors to try this method.
Response: Thank you. The sources of inorganic carbon in tailings are very wide, including degassing during weathering, carbonate rock weathering, atmospheric addition, etc. Therefore, the discussion of this part is relatively difficult. The focus of this article is to discuss the conversion process of his degassing and absorption process.
Comments: Figure 5. How did the author arrive at the dashed line which represents boundary between CO2 emissions and absorption? How this threshold was defined?
Response: Thank you. The Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 are illustrated the represents boundary between CO2 emissions and absorption.
Comments: There are some grammatical mistakes in the paper, I suggest to proof read the text for English.
Response: thank you. We have try to correct it.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents the results of a series of water chemistry analyses from 30 mine tailings ponds within the Panxi region, China. The water chemistry data is used to determine which tailings ponds are degassing CO2 thanks to sulfide oxidation dissolving pre-existing carbonates and which tailings ponds are sequestering CO2 by alkalinity trapping thanks to carbonic acid dissolution of pre-existing carbonates or Ca/Mg silicate minerals. Overall I consider this paper to be acceptable it needs minor revisions throughout to bring it up to publication standard.
The attached document goes into greater detail about my comments and suggestions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The paper appears to me to be mostly solid from a scientific basis, most of my issues involve improving language. Other issues are assuming dolomite dissolution is the largest contributor to the cations in solution, which I do not think there is enough evidence for (although it is a possibility).
Finally I think section 5.4.3 could use some work, I believe they are using the term net sequestration incorrectly, while several of the ponds are currently sequestering CO2 the magnitude of the initial degassing is so much larger that I doubt there will ever be net sequestration on time scales of less than 100-1000 years. Finally their recommendations for easy testing of carbon sequestration in tailings ponds is an interesting idea but they need to take analytical uncertainty into consideration.
Author Response
Comments: This paper presents the results of a series of water chemistry analyses from 30 mine tailings ponds within the Panxi region, China. The water chemistry data is used to determine which tailings ponds are degassing CO2 thanks to sulphide oxidation dissolving pre-existing carbonates and which tailings ponds are sequestering CO2 by alkalinity trapping thanks to carbonic acid dissolution of pre-existing carbonates or Ca/Mg silicate minerals. Overall, I consider this paper to be acceptable it needs minor revisions throughout to bring it up to publication standard.
Response: Thank you.
Comments: The attached document goes into greater detail about my comments and suggestions.
Response: Thank you. We have revised the paper regarding your comments on the attached document. Your comments helped improve the scientificity and rigor of our paper.
Comments: The paper appears to me to be mostly solid from a scientific basis, most of my issues involve improving language. Other issues are assuming dolomite dissolution is the largest contributor to the cations in solution, which I do not think there is enough evidence for (although it is a possibility).
Response: Thank you. We have polished the language.
We have discussed the dolomite dissolution in the manuscript.
Comments: Finally, I think section 5.4.3 could use some work, I believe they are using the term net sequestration incorrectly, while several of the ponds are currently sequestering CO2 the magnitude of the initial degassing is so much larger that I doubt there will ever be net sequestration on time scales of less than 100-1000 years. Finally, their recommendations for easy testing of carbon sequestration in tailings ponds is an interesting idea but they need to take analytical uncertainty into consideration.
Response: Thank you.
The recommendations for “easy testing of carbon sequestration” is a interesting topic. Addressing this, we are continuing our research and subsequent findings will focus on this research topic.
Comments: 22 – “cessation times” is a strange term that I have not seen before, I would suggest using “ pond closure times” or “days since pond closure” instead
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: 59 – “enhances” rather than “intensifies”
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: 70 – “depletion” rather than “exhaustion”
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: 124 – I would say “filtered water samples” at first and then use “filtrate” for the rest of the paper
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: 130 – “best reflect” rather than “optimally reflect”
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: 131 - do you mean “higher altitude than the Wanniangou tailings pond”? If it is in the tailings pond then how can it be considered free of mining disturbances?
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it to the upstream to avoid the confusion.
Comments: 273 - I wouldn’t use the term “end member” here maybe “depict a trend between carbonates and evaporites”
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: 270 - “probably include approx. one-fifth” is very weak language, approx. is not an acceptable abbreviation, and one-fifth is not hyphenated. instead I would say with “among the ponds (621 μmol/L) with approximately one fifth coming from an external input” and then complete the sentence.
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: Figure 3C “Dormant” not “dormancy”
Response: Thank you, I am very sorry that due to a problem with my drawing software, there is a small error in the figure in the paper that has not been corrected. I will make up for it later.
Comments: 321 “Therefore” is unnecessary in this sentence.
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: 325 “than the recommended value of” is unnecessary just say 0.04 is significantly lower than 2.
Figure 4 – Misspelled “silicate weathering”
In addition to issues with language I have noticed some other issues that should be addressed.
Response: Thank you, I am very sorry that due to a problem with my drawing software, there is a small error in the figure in the paper that has not been corrected. I will make up for it later.
Comments: 50 – I think this should be sulphide oxidation not sulphite oxidation.
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: 54-55 – Serpentine is a group of minerals, asbestos is not a single mineral it covers a wide variety of minerals, kimberlite is a rock type not a mineral. You should rewrite this sentence to be specific to the minerals of interest.
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it with olivine, serpentine, pyroxene, and amphibole.
Comments: 142-143 – Precision and accuracy mean different things, please check if you are using the terms correctly. (Accuracy is how close you are to the correct value for a sample, precision is how close multiple analyses of the same sample will be to each other)
Response: Thank you. We think the precision in more correct in the sentences.
Comments: 173 – Reference 48 appears to be referring to incongruent dissolution in the presence of nucleotides it may not be a useful reference in this context.
Response:
Comments: 178-179 – Is there a reason you use SO42-/HCO3- ratio here but HCO3-/SO42- for analysis later on in the paper? I would recommend just using one ratio of the two anions.
Response: Thank you. We corrected to [HCO3-/SO42-].
Comments: Table 1 – The Ca2+ concentration of several samples is >10000 and is creating formatting issues with the table I would suggest reducing the font slightly for those values or reformatting slightly to give the Ca2+ column more width. Also the CO2 degas or absorb column should be tons/year
Response: Thank you, we have corrected it.
Comments: Figure 3 – Include references for your carbonates, silicates and evaporites fields, also the X symbols in the silicates field look like data points and should be removed and/or you need a legend that says the black boxes are your data points. For Figure 3C you should include error bars so the readers can see how much if any overlap there is between the active and dormant mines.
Response: Thank you, I am very sorry that due to a problem with my drawing software, there is a small error in the figure in the paper that has not been corrected. I will make up for it later.
Comments: 286 – I think you need more evidence than just the Sr isotopes for proving the providence of the carbonates. Assuming the fields from references 61-63 are correct only 7 of your data points plot within the carbonate field, 11 plot between the carbonate and silicate field and 12 plot above the carbonate field.
Response: Thank you.
Comments: 291-310 – I have some concerns with your assumption that dolomite dissolution appears to be the main source of Ca and Mg. You say the tailings contain 4.2 vol% calcite, and 1.5 vol% dolomite and that calcite dissolves faster than dolomite. If there is more calcite and it dissolves faster then how is it not contributing more cations than the dolomite? It seems to me that either there is a lot more dolomite in the tailings than what was reported in reference 38, or there is significant dissolution of Mg minerals in addition to the calcite, dolomite and magnesite dissolution. Of your 30 samples 14 samples plot within 0.80 and 1.2 (typical values expended from dolomite dominated dissolution) 12 plot within 0.38 and 0.8 (more Ca than expected for dolomite dissolution only) and 3 plot within 1.20 and 2.55 (more Mg than expected for dolomite solution).
Response: Thank you. Since calcite prefers to dissolve, this dissolution process has been exceeded herein. To this end, I provide a clearer discussion in my paper.
Comments: 325 – It is worth pointing out that pH of 5.79 while more acidic than the other values is still very mild, it is more neutral than rainwater for instance (~5.4). It may be more appropriate to say than the Yuantong tailings pond has limited acid neutralization capacity compared to the other ponds, likely due to the neutralization capacity of only Ca-Mg silicates with very limited carbonates being present.
Response: thank you. Yes, I agree with you. No more carbonate were used to neutralize the acid in Yuantong tailings pond.
Comments: 353 – Why did you trust the Mg/Na but not the Ca/Na from reference number 80? Could you not use the two values to calculate the proportion of Ca that is carbonate vs silicate derived in the Emeishan basalt and then use that calculated value instead of assuming values from rivers in South Korea and Canada?
Response: Thank you. Because the ratio in the Panxi area does not distinguish whether the calcium ions come from silicate rocks or carbonates.
Comments: 329-367 – How do the results of Figure 4 and Figure 3 compare to each other? I would assume that the tailings ponds with the highest carbonate weathering contribution (Baicao) in Figure 4 would plot closest to the carbonate weathering field in Figure 3a and 3b however that does not seem to be the case. I think you should explain why these results appear to be contradictory.
Response: Thank you. The questions you raised are very good and will help us improve the deficiencies of the paper. For this reason, I have made some improvements in the paper. In fact, in Figure 3 and Figure 4, the characteristics of white grass are consistent, with high calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate levels, indicating weathering of carbonate rocks.
Comments: 451 – I would be careful using the term net absorption as that implies overall (and over time) CO2 is being absorbed. If we assume the water sampling is taking a snapshot in time of the chemical weathering that is currently rather than reflecting the total chemical weathering that has occurred (which is likely considering the reduction of TDS, Mg, Ca etc with cessation time). Then it is important to consider that the degassing of CO2 is orders of magnitude larger than any of the sequestration values and it is unlikely that the tailings will ever sequester more CO2 than was initially lost. For example Majiatian is currently emitting 78490 tons CO2/year, if we assume that the pond closed immediately and stops degassing after 2 years it will still have emitted ~40000 tons of CO2. Even if we assume the highest observed sequestration rate (Baicao 387 tons/year) it would still take ~100 years before the Majaitian tailings pond achieved Net CO2 sequestration.
Response: Thank you. Our results are based on our data. As for whether they are correct, we can continue to discuss. Maybe there will be more evidence in the future to prove that our conclusion is wrong. However, I still want to reserve my opinion for now.
Comments: 448-470 (+Figure 5) – I have some concerns that I think should be addressed in this section. I think Figure 5 would be much more informative if you plotted SO42-, HCO3-/SO42- and TDS as your x axes against tons/year of CO2 degas or absorption on the y axis. This will do a much better job of showing the data trends from degassing to absorption. You also need to take instrumental error into account with your calculations and these recommendations, there are many mines that have degassing values very close to 0 (for example Jintai). If there are any errors, either from the instrumentation or from your assumptions while calculating the degassing values then these low degassing values could be absorption (If Jintai is actually absorbing CO2 then it has a much higher TDS than your recommended value of 700).
Response: Thank you. In fact, you have proposed a good research direction. However, due to the different closure times of the tailings ponds we sampled, it is difficult for us to extrapolate each tailing pond to different SO42-, HCO3-/SO42- and TDS, and it is not accurate. However, this is a good research direction, and perhaps we will try to carry out this work in the future.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall an interesting study on the CO2 sequestration capacity of mafic/ultramafic ores from different regions. However, the manuscript needs further refinement (minor revisions) before acceptance, and I suggest the following:
The abstract needs to be streamlined as the story gets lost while trying to convey too much of numbers. Numbers are important but not at the cost of a streamlined story that should attract the reader in the first place. Provide research aims and how this study achieves them.
The introduction discusses weathering and sulfide oxidation in great detail but does not mention the research gaps addressed in this study. A connection is missing. Kindly refine.
In methodology, the authors need to explain the reasoning for these specific samples being taken considering the bigger picture. Sampling is much more focused on analytical tools, but it is not mentioned what these samples represent. Provide a discussion on that.
Explain the methodology for isotopic analysis and the number of times samples were reproduced. Also, replications for mean readings and the deviations.
Table 1: Use significant digits for better understanding.
Similar takeaway for all tables and figures: although quite informative, it is difficult to decipher the key findings. Simplify and present key findings in them.
The discussion lacks building a story between the existing literature and what this study advances.
Provide relevance of SI in conveying the research findings. I do not see it being mentioned anywhere in the manuscript.
Authors are highly suggested to paraphrase technical jargon and use simplified language for better readability and understanding.
Author Response
Comments: Overall an interesting study on the CO2 sequestration capacity of mafic/ultramafic ores from different regions. However, the manuscript needs further refinement (minor revisions) before acceptance, and I suggest the following:
Response: thank you.
Comments: The abstract needs to be streamlined as the story gets lost while trying to convey too much of numbers. Numbers are important but not at the cost of a streamlined story that should attract the reader in the first place. Provide research aims and how this study achieves them.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. We have revised the abstract to make it more indirect, attractive, and direct.
Comments: The introduction discusses weathering and sulfide oxidation in great detail but does not mention the research gaps addressed in this study. A connection is missing. Kindly refine.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. We add the gaps description between weathering and sulfide oxidation in Section 5.1.
Comments: In methodology, the authors need to explain the reasoning for these specific samples being taken considering the bigger picture. Sampling is much more focused on analytical tools, but it is not mentioned what these samples represent. Provide a discussion on that.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. We add the description in the Section 3.1.
Comments: Explain the methodology for isotopic analysis and the number of times samples were reproduced. Also, replications for mean readings and the deviations.
Response: Thank you. We add the description in the Section 3.2.
Comments: Table 1: Use significant digits for better understanding. Similar takeaway for all tables and figures:
Response: Thank you. We have modified the significant numbers in the figures and tables in the paper.
Comments: Although quite informative, it is difficult to decipher the key findings. Simplify and present key findings in them. The discussion lacks building a story between the existing literature and what this study advances.
Response: Thank you. Thank you. Your comments are very constructive, but difficult to modify. Nevertheless, we have tried to make changes.
Comments: Provide relevance of SI in conveying the research findings. I do not see it being mentioned anywhere in the manuscript.
Response: thank you. We illustrate this in Table 1.
Comments: Authors are highly suggested to paraphrase technical jargon and use simplified language for better readability and understanding.
Response: thank you. We will try to modify the language to make the research more readability and understanding.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript seems to have been significantly improved upon incorporating reviewers feedback.
