Insecticidal Evaluation of Spinosad Against the Hide Beetle, Dermestes maculatus DeGeer (Coleoptera: Dermestidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to authors

The manuscript addresses the insecticidal activity of spinosad against Dermestes maculatus on animal-based substrates, which is a relevant and potentially useful contribution for stored-product protection. The topic fits the scope of insect toxicology and applied pest management. The study shows promise, especially because information on D. maculatus control on dried fish is limited.

However, the manuscript in its current form has substantial problems in language, methodological clarity, statistical interpretation, and presentation of results. Several sections are repetitive or over-interpreted, and the multivariate analyses appear unnecessary or insufficiently justified. I recommend major revision.

Major comments

Lines 1–4: The title is understandable but could be improved for clarity and conciseness. ”

Lines 12–32: The abstract is too long and gives disproportionate emphasis to the dendrogram and PCA. These analyses are secondary and should not dominate the abstract.

Lines 21–30: Statements such as “The dendrogram effectively visualizes…” and “The PCA analysis exhibited…” are too interpretive for the abstract. Focus instead on the biological findings: mortality differences between larvae and adults, contact vs feeding, and LC values.

The abstract should report the main quantitative results more clearly, including the most important LC50/LC90 comparisons.

Lines 35–49: The introduction contains several grammatical problems and awkward phrases. Examples:

Line 40: “comprising about 80 percent of the total stored dried products” is unclear.

Lines 42–44: “losses have been attributed to net reductions in the amountof nutrients” should be rewritten.

Lines 50–58: Good rationale, but the paragraph would benefit from clearer distinction between fumigation, surface treatments, and direct application on commodities.

Lines 59–72: The spinosad section is useful, but the sentence structure needs editing.
For example:

Line 63: “constitutes spinosada viable solution” should be corrected.

Lines 67–69: spacing and wording are inconsistent.

Lines 79–84: More information is needed on insect colony maintenance.
Please specify:

how long the colony was maintained before experiments,

whether field-collected adults or laboratory-produced insects were used in the bioassays,

whether larvae and adults used in the tests were standardized by age.

Lines 85–92: The insecticide preparation section is incomplete.

How were the concentrations prepared exactly?

What was the solvent or diluent?

What volume was applied per pot?

How was uniform coverage ensured?

Lines 93–106: Bioassay I is not fully clear.

Line 95: You say “5 concentrations” but list 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, and 4 ppm, which is actually 6 concentrations.

Lines 98–100: Were larvae and adults treated in separate experiments? This should be stated explicitly.

Line 99: “sprayed into the pot using a syringe” is vague. Syringes dispense liquid; they do not “spray” unless a specific device was used.

Line 104: Why was fresh shrimp added after each interval in a contact bioassay? This may confound interpretation unless clearly justified.

Lines 107–116: Bioassay II needs similar clarification.

How much solution was applied to 10 g shrimp?

Was the shrimp allowed to dry before insects were introduced?

Were controls treated with water/solvent only?

Lines 117–126: Statistical methods need major clarification.

Please clarify whether cumulative mortality or interval mortality was analyzed.

The model structure should be explicitly stated.

Abbott’s correction is fine, but control mortality values should be reported.

Lines 128–141: Results are mostly clear, but interpretation is sometimes too broad.

Line 133: Table 1 reports LD50/LD90/LD95, but earlier the text refers to concentrations in ppm; technically these should likely be LC values unless dose per insect was measured.

Lines 151–163: There is a contradiction.

Line 159 states adults were consistently more tolerant than larvae in feeding exposure, as shown by higher LC50 and LC90 values.

But in the abstract (lines 19–20) you state adults showed increased susceptibility under feeding exposure.
These statements need to be reconciled.

Lines 160–163: If larvae are more susceptible overall, say so consistently and avoid contradictory wording.

Lines 173–181: The dendrogram is not especially informative with only four response categories (larval contact, larval feeding, adult contact, adult feeding). The biological value of this analysis is limited. Please justify why clustering adds insight beyond direct mortality and LC comparisons.

Line 187: If PC1 explains 99.5% of the variation, then the analysis is basically reflecting the dose gradient.

Lines 194–204: The interpretations are overstated. PCA is exploratory and does not demonstrate mechanism.

I suggest either removing the dendrogram and PCA or substantially shortening their interpretation and moving them to supplementary material.

Lines 206–318: The discussion contains useful points, but it is much longer than necessary.

Lines 210–212: The statement that spinosad was “by far more effective” on diet than surface should be directly supported by LC comparisons.

Lines 213–228: The explanation that larvae had wider contact with the surface is plausible, but speculative. Please phrase more cautiously.

Lines 229–236: The paragraph on larval hairs providing protection is interesting, but again speculative unless supported by cited evidence.

Lines 245–311: The sections on clustering and PCA are over-discussed relative to their actual contribution. These sections can be shortened considerably.

Lines 302–311: This paragraph is more balanced and should be retained, but the earlier PCA discussion should be condensed.

Lines 125, 133, 136, 159: The manuscript alternates between LD50 and LC50. Please use the correct term consistently. Since concentrations in ppm were used on substrate/surfaces, LC is probably more appropriate than LD unless actual dose per insect was measured.

Minor comments

Line 13: “reduced-risk insecticide” is acceptable, but cite this characterization if possible.

Line 22: “stage- and route-dependent efficacy” is fine, but simplify wording.

Line 23: “paĴerns” contains encoding errors. Similar symbol problems occur throughout the manuscript.

Line 40: add a space after the comma in “products,which”.

Line 42: “amountof” should be “amount of”.

Line 63: “spinosada viable solution” should be “spinosad a viable solution” or be rewritten.

Line 68: “more effective thanthe” should be corrected.

Line 87: species authority formatting for Saccharopolyspora spinosa should be checked.

Line 90: “25oC” should be formatted consistently as “25 °C”.

Line 101: “there were five replicates” — specify whether this was per concentration and stage.

Line 102: “gauge cloth” should probably be “gauze cloth”.

Lines 143–148, 166–171: figure legends should specify sample size.

Table 1: formatting is difficult to read; confidence intervals are inconsistently presented.

Line 183: “D.maculatus” should have a space after the period.

Lines 191–193: Figure 6 legend is generic; please specify what points represent.

Line 223: “Bostrychidae” should be checked; likely Bostrichidae.

Line 244: “bonus” is too informal for scientific writing. Please rewrite

Author Response

Manuscript ID: insects-4208537

Title: Insecticidal Evaluation of Spinosad Against the Hide Beetle, Dermestes maculatus DeGeer (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) Infesting Stored Dry Fish

Journal: Insects

 

Dear Dr. Deng,

Thanks for your letter regarding our paper entitled: “Evaluation of spinosad against the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus DeGeer (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) infesting stored dry fish”. The comments of the reviewers are valuable and contribute greatly to the improvement of our work. In the following we shall refer to these comments, which, as you can see, have been addressed/incorporated.

I remain at your disposal should you need additional information.

Many thanks for your interest on our work, and for giving us the opportunity to resubmit.

Sincerely,

Paraskevi Agrafioti

Paraskevi Agrafioti

Post-Doc Researcher

University of Thessaly

 

Reviewer 1

Comments to authors

The manuscript addresses the insecticidal activity of spinosad against Dermestes maculatus on animal-based substrates, which is a relevant and potentially useful contribution for stored-product protection. The topic fits the scope of insect toxicology and applied pest management. The study shows promise, especially because information on D. maculatus control on dried fish is limited. However, the manuscript in its current form has substantial problems in language, methodological clarity, statistical interpretation, and presentation of results. Several sections are repetitive or over-interpreted, and the multivariate analyses appear unnecessary or insufficiently justified. I recommend major revision.

REPLY: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comments and recommendations on improving the quality of the manuscript before resubmission. A revised version is submitted with the proposed corrections/additions addressed. A point by point reply on each comment/correction can be found below.

Major comments

Lines 1–4: The title is understandable but could be improved for clarity and conciseness.”

REPLY: The title was revised as “Insecticidal evaluation of Spinosad against the hide beetle Dermestes maculatus DeGeer (Coleoptera: Dermestidae)”

Lines 12–32: The abstract is too long and gives disproportionate emphasis to the dendrogram and PCA. These analyses are secondary and should not dominate the abstract.

REPLY: Indeed, we have deleted some sentences in the abstract.

 

Lines 21–30: Statements such as “The dendrogram effectively visualizes…” and “The PCA analysis exhibited…” are too interpretive for the abstract. Focus instead on the biological findings: mortality differences between larvae and adults, contact vs feeding, and LC values.

REPLY: The abstract was revised.

 

The abstract should report the main quantitative results more clearly, including the most important LC50/LC90 comparisons.

REPLY: The abstract was revised, plesee see lines 25-40.

 

Lines 35–49: The introduction contains several grammatical problems and awkward phrases. Examples:

REPLY: The introduction was corrected.

 

Line 40: “comprising about 80 percent of the total stored dried products” is unclear.

REPLY: Indeed, the phrase was deleted.

 

Lines 42–44: “losses have been attributed to net reductions in the amount of nutrients” should be rewritten.

REPLY: This sentence was revised as “The losses are associated with reduction in nutrient availability, leading to decreased consumer acceptability and market value, as well as to both quantitative and qualitative losses”.

 

Lines 50–58: Good rationale, but the paragraph would benefit from clearer distinction between fumigation, surface treatments, and direct application on commodities.

REPLY: This paragraph was revised.

 

Lines 59–72: The spinosad section is useful, but the sentence structure needs editing. For example:

REPLY: Revised as “Spinosad, an insecticide that is based on metabolites of the bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa Mertz & Yao, has been proved effective against a wide range of stored product insects under, both laboratory^11-14 and field conditions¹⁵”.

 

Line 63: “constitutes spinosada viable solution” should be corrected.

REPLY: Thank you for this comment. Corrected.

 

Lines 67–69: spacing and wording are inconsistent.

REPLY: Corrected.

 

Lines 79–84: More information is needed on insect colony maintenance. Please specify: how long the colony was maintained before experiments, whether field-collected adults or laboratory-produced insects were used in the bioassays, whether larvae and adults used in the tests were standardized by age.

REPLY: Thank you for this important comment. We have now clarified the insect colony maintenance procedure in the revised manuscript. The colony was maintained under laboratory conditions for ten generations prior to the bioassays to ensure acclimatization and uniformity. The insects used in the experiments were derived from this laboratory-reared colony rather than directly from field collections. Furthermore, individuals were age-standardized: last instar larvae and 3–4-day-old adults were used in all bioassays. These details have been added to the Materials and Methods section; please see lines 107-112.

 

Lines 85–92: The insecticide preparation section is incomplete.

How were the concentrations prepared exactly?

What was the solvent or diluent?

What volume was applied per pot?

How was uniform coverage ensured?

REPLY: The sentence was revised as “Six concentrations of Spinosad were evaluated, i.e., 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, and 4 ppm for larval and adult stages of D. maculatus”. Subsection 2.2 was revised; please see lines 113-133.

Lines 93–106: Bioassay I is not fully clear.

REPLY: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised Lines 85–92 to provide a complete and clearer description of the insecticide preparation and application procedure. Specifically, we now state that spinosad concentrations (0.25–4 ppm) were prepared by diluting the required amount of the formulated product in distilled water, which was used as the solvent. A fixed volume of 0.5 mL of each concentration was applied per pot using a calibrated micropipette. To ensure uniform coverage, the solution was evenly dispensed onto the inner surface of each plastic pot and allowed to spread naturally, followed by a one hour drying period to permit complete evaporation of the water before introducing the test insects.

 

Line 95: You say “5 concentrations” but list 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2, and 4 ppm, which is actually 6 concentrations.

REPLY: Revised.

 

Lines 98–100: Were larvae and adults treated in separate experiments? This should be stated explicitly.

REPLY: Larval and adult stages were evaluated separately in plastic pots.

 

Line 99: “sprayed into the pot using a syringe” is vague. Syringes dispense liquid; they do not “spray” unless a specific device was used.

REPLY: We used micropipette and corrected it in the text; please see lines 117-118.

 

Line 104: Why was fresh shrimp added after each interval in a contact bioassay? This may confound interpretation unless clearly justified.

REPLY: Thank you for this valuable observation. Fresh shrimp was introduced after each experimental interval to prevent microbial contamination and deterioration of the substrate, which could otherwise affect insect behavior, survival, and the consistency of exposure conditions. Using contaminated or decomposed shrimp could introduce confounding factors unrelated to the treatment effects. Therefore, replacing shrimp ensured uniform experimental conditions across all intervals. This justification has now been clarified in the revised manuscript.

 

Lines 107–116: Bioassay II needs similar clarification.

How much solution was applied to 10 g shrimp?

Was the shrimp allowed to dry before insects were introduced?

Were controls treated with water/solvent only?

REPLY: Thank you for these important clarifications. A total of 0.5 ml of the test solution was applied to 10 g of shrimp. After treatment, the shrimp was allowed to air-dry before the introduction of insects to ensure uniform exposure and to avoid direct contact with excess moisture. In the control treatment, shrimp was treated with an equivalent volume (0.5 ml) of water only. These details have now been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

 

Lines 117–126: Statistical methods need major clarification.

Please clarify whether cumulative mortality or interval mortality was analyzed.

The model structure should be explicitly stated.

Abbott’s correction is fine, but control mortality values should be reported.

REPLY: Thank you for this important comment. We have revised to clarify the statistical procedures used. These revisions have been made to clearly define the model structure and analytical approach.

 

Lines 128–141: Results are mostly clear, but interpretation is sometimes too broad.

REPLY: Indeed! Thank you for this comment. Some sentences were revised.

 

Line 133: Table 1 reports LD50/LD90/LD95, but earlier the text refers to concentrations in ppm; technically these should likely be LC values unless dose per insect was measured.

REPLY: LD changed to LC.

Lines 151–163: There is a contradiction.

REPLY: Revised.

Line 159 states adults were consistently more tolerant than larvae in feeding exposure, as shown by higher LC50 and LC90 values.

REPLY: Done.

 

But in the abstract (lines 19–20) you state adults showed increased susceptibility under feeding exposure. These statements need to be reconciled.

REPLY: Corrected.

 

Lines 160–163: If larvae are more susceptible overall, say so consistently and avoid contradictory wording.

REPLY: Corrected.

 

Lines 173–181: The dendrogram is not especially informative with only four response categories (larval contact, larval feeding, adult contact, adult feeding). The biological value of this analysis is limited. Please justify why clustering adds insight beyond direct mortality and LC comparisons.

REPLY: Thank you for the comment. We agreed that the dendrogram is based on only four response variables; however, it was included to provide a multivariate overview of treatment performance. Clustering integrates larval and adult responses under both contact and feeding exposures, allowing comparison of overall efficacy patterns across treatments. This helps identify consistency or divergence in activity that may not be evident from individual mortality or LC values alone.

 

Line 187: If PC1 explains 99.5% of the variation, then the analysis is basically reflecting the dose gradient.

REPLY: Thank you for this important observation. We acknowledge that PC1 explaining 99.5% of the variation largely reflects the underlying dose gradient. However, the PCA was included to confirm that dose is the dominant driver of variation across all response types and to evaluate whether any secondary structure exists among larval/adult and contact/feeding responses. Although minor, variation captured by subsequent components helps assess consistency or subtle differences in response patterns across exposure routes and life stages. The interpretation has been revised to clarify this point and to avoid overstatement.

 

Lines 194–204: The interpretations are overstated. PCA is exploratory and does not demonstrate mechanism.I suggest either removing the dendrogram and PCA or substantially shortening their interpretation and moving them to supplementary material.

REPLY: Indeed, the PCA and dendrogram will be transferred in the supplementary file.

 

Lines 206–318: The discussion contains useful points, but it is much longer than necessary.

REPLY: The discussion section was revised.

 

Lines 210–212: The statement that spinosad was “by far more effective” on diet than surface should be directly supported by LC comparisons.

REPLY: Correct.

 

Lines 213–228: The explanation that larvae had wider contact with the surface is plausible, but speculative. Please phrase more cautiously.

REPLY: Revised.

 

Lines 229–236: The paragraph on larval hairs providing protection is interesting, but again speculative unless supported by cited evidence.

REPLY: Two references have been included:

- Kousar, N.; Riaz, T.; Feroz, A.; Shakoori, A.R.; Shakoori, F.R. Efficacy of diatomaceous earth and deltamethrin alone and in combinations on mortality and energy reserves of insecticide resistant strains of stored grain pest, Trogoderma granarium. Pak. J. Zool. 2021, 53, 2183–2193.

- Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Mavroforos, M.E.; Kontodimas, D.C. Efficacy of alpha-cypermethrin and thiamethoxam against Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) and Tenebrio molitor L. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on concrete. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2015, 62, 101–107.

 

Lines 245–311: The sections on clustering and PCA are over-discussed relative to their actual contribution. These sections can be shortened considerably.

REPLY: This section was revised accordingly.

 

Lines 302–311: This paragraph is more balanced and should be retained, but the earlier PCA discussion should be condensed.

REPLY: This section was revised accordingly.

 

Lines 125, 133, 136, 159: The manuscript alternates between LD50 and LC50. Please use the correct term consistently. Since concentrations in ppm were used on substrate/surfaces, LC is probably more appropriate than LD unless actual dose per insect was measured.

REPLY: LD was changed accordingly throughout the text.

Minor comments

Line 13: “reduced-risk insecticide” is acceptable, but cite this characterization if possible.

REPLY: This phrase was cited in the abstract section. Deleted.

 

Line 22: “stage- and route-dependent efficacy” is fine, but simplify wording.

REPLY: Deleted.

 

Line 23: “paĴerns” contains encoding errors. Similar symbol problems occur throughout the manuscript.

REPLY: Deleted.

 

Line 40: add a space after the comma in “products, which”.

REPLY: Done.

 

Line 42: “amountof” should be “amount of”.

REPLY: Done.

 

Line 63: “spinosada viable solution” should be “spinosad a viable solution” or be rewritten.

REPLY: Done.

 

Line 68: “more effective thanthe” should be corrected.

REPLY: Done.

Line 87: species authority formatting for Saccharopolyspora spinosa should be checked.

REPLY: This is correct.

 

Line 90: “25oC” should be formatted consistently as “25 °C”.

REPLY: Revised.

 

Line 101: “there were five replicates” — specify whether this was per concentration and stage.

REPLY: Revised.

 

Line 102: “gauge cloth” should probably be “gauze cloth”.

REPLY: Done.

 

Lines 143–148, 166–171: figure legends should specify sample size.

REPLY: We thank the reviewer for this positive comment and are pleased that the figures are considered clear and easy to interpret.

 

Table 1: formatting is difficult to read; confidence intervals are inconsistently presented.

REPLY: Table 1 was revised.

 

Line 183: “D.maculatus” should have a space after the period.

REPLY: Done.

 

Lines 191–193: Figure 6 legend is generic; please specify what points represent.

REPLY: Figure 6 is presented as a supplementary file.

 

Line 223: “Bostrychidae” should be checked; likely Bostrichidae.

REPLY: Done.

 

Line 244: “bonus” is too informal for scientific writing. Please rewrite

REPLY: Correct. This sentence was deleted.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the control potential of the bioinsecticide spinosad against the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus, and explored its effectiveness as a low-risk alternative insecticide. The research focused on differences in susceptibility between larvae and adults under two exposure routes. The results indicate that spinosad exhibits significant lethal effects against D. maculatus, with mortality increasing as both insecticide concentration and exposure time increased. The study further shows that larvae are more sensitive to contact exposure, whereas adults display greater susceptibility under feeding exposure. In addition, the analysis suggests that dosage is the primary source of variation driving insect mortality and identifies toxicological similarities between the two exposure pathways. The authors conclude that spinosad demonstrates strong control efficacy in animal-based substrates, with insecticidal performance comparable to that observed in traditional grain-based substrates. This study contributes to filling a research gap regarding the efficacy of spinosad against D. maculatus. However, several issues should be addressed.

Point 1: The introduction describes the effectiveness of spinosad in controlling insects in grain and other products. It would be beneficial to include additional studies concerning the application of spinosad in non-grain substrates including animal materials to strengthen the relevance of the research background.

Point 2: The discussion states that D. maculatus shows significantly higher tolerance to spinosad compared with other common stored-product pests. It would be helpful to provide specific dosage comparisons to quantitatively illustrate the differences in tolerance between D. maculatus and other stored-product insect species.

Point 3: The discussion section mainly reiterates the results and does not sufficiently integrate the findings with the broader literature. The authors should expand the comparison with previous studies on spinosad efficacy against stored-product pests and further explore possible physiological or behavioral mechanisms underlying the differences in susceptibility between larvae and adults. For instance, the suggestion that larval setae may provide some protective effect is plausible, but it lacks supporting references and should be substantiated with relevant literature or further justification.

In addition, the following minor issues should be corrected:

Point 1: Line 42: "amountof" should be revised to "amounts of".

Point 2: Line 68: "thanthe" should be corrected to "than the".

Point 3: The term "relative humidity" is used earlier in the manuscript; therefore, the abbreviation "rh" in line 90 should be revised to "relative humidity" for consistency.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: insects-4208537

Title: Insecticidal Evaluation of Spinosad Against the Hide Beetle, Dermestes maculatus DeGeer (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) Infesting Stored Dry Fish

Journal: Insects

 

Dear Dr. Deng,

Thanks for your letter regarding our paper entitled: “Evaluation of spinosad against the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus DeGeer (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) infesting stored dry fish”. The comments of the reviewers are valuable and contribute greatly to the improvement of our work. In the following we shall refer to these comments, which, as you can see, have been addressed/incorporated.

I remain at your disposal should you need additional information.

Many thanks for your interest on our work, and for giving us the opportunity to resubmit.

Sincerely,

Paraskevi Agrafioti

Paraskevi Agrafioti

Post-Doc Researcher

University of Thessaly

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the control potential of the bioinsecticide spinosad against the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus, and explored its effectiveness as a low-risk alternative insecticide. The research focused on differences in susceptibility between larvae and adults under two exposure routes. The results indicate that spinosad exhibits significant lethal effects against D. maculatus, with mortality increasing as both insecticide concentration and exposure time increased. The study further shows that larvae are more sensitive to contact exposure, whereas adults display greater susceptibility under feeding exposure. In addition, the analysis suggests that dosage is the primary source of variation driving insect mortality and identifies toxicological similarities between the two exposure pathways. The authors conclude that spinosad demonstrates strong control efficacy in animal-based substrates, with insecticidal performance comparable to that observed in traditional grain-based substrates. This study contributes to filling a research gap regarding the efficacy of spinosad against D. maculatus. However, several issues should be addressed.

REPLY: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comments and recommendations on improving the quality of the manuscript before resubmission. A revised version is submitted with the proposed corrections/additions addressed. A point by point reply on each comment/correction can be found below.

 

Point 1: The introduction describes the effectiveness of spinosad in controlling insects in grain and other products. It would be beneficial to include additional studies concerning the application of spinosad in non-grain substrates including animal materials to strengthen the relevance of the research background.

REPLY: The information has been added.

 

Point 2: The discussion states that D. maculatus shows significantly higher tolerance to spinosad compared with other common stored-product pests. It would be helpful to provide specific dosage comparisons to quantitatively illustrate the differences in tolerance between D. maculatus and other stored-product insect species.

REPLY: We have added some sentences.

 

Point 3: The discussion section mainly reiterates the results and does not sufficiently integrate the findings with the broader literature. The authors should expand the comparison with previous studies on spinosad efficacy against stored-product pests and further explore possible physiological or behavioral mechanisms underlying the differences in susceptibility between larvae and adults. For instance, the suggestion that larval setae may provide some protective effect is plausible, but it lacks supporting references and should be substantiated with relevant literature or further justification.

REPLY: We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We agree that the Discussion section required further integration with the broader literature and additional mechanistic interpretation.

In addition, the following minor issues should be corrected:

Point 1: Line 42: "amountof" should be revised to "amounts of".

REPLY: Done.

 

Point 2: Line 68: "thanthe" should be corrected to "than the".

REPLY: Done.

 

Point 3: The term "relative humidity" is used earlier in the manuscript; therefore, the abbreviation "rh" in line 90 should be revised to "relative humidity" for consistency.

REPLY: Revised accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version has been confirmed to have no issues.