Review Reports - Effects of Compound Probiotics on Production Performance, Apparent Digestion Rate of Nutrients and Serum Index of Pigs at Different Stages

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is relevant and aligns well with current interests in antibiotic alternatives and sustainable livestock production.

The experimental design is generally appropriate, and the manuscript includes a broad range of evaluated parameters. The results suggest that probiotic supplementation may positively influence sow reproductive performance, piglet growth, nutrient digestibility, and selected immune indicators.

However, several aspects of the manuscript should be improved before publication.

The introduction provides useful background information, but it would benefit from a more critical overview of recent studies. Some references are outdated, while additional recent literature related to probiotic applications in swine production should be included.

The description of the probiotic preparation should be expanded. More detailed information regarding the microbial strains, viability stability, and product characterization would improve reproducibility.

The statistical analysis section should be clarified. The manuscript states that one-way ANOVA and LSD tests were used, but assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were not discussed.

Several tables could be improved for readability and consistency. Group names such as “test team I/II/III” should be replaced with clearer terminology (e.g., Treatment 1, Treatment 2, Treatment 3). In addition, formatting of units and superscripts should be carefully revised.

Some results require deeper interpretation in the Discussion section. The discussion is currently largely descriptive and should better explain the biological mechanisms behind the observed effects, especially regarding immune responses and antioxidant indicators.

The authors should discuss certain contradictory findings more critically. For example, the lower piglet birth weight in probiotic groups compared with the control group deserves additional explanation.

The conclusion section should be strengthened by emphasizing the practical implications and limitations of the study.

Overall, the study has potential value for the field of animal nutrition and sustainable pig production, but substantial improvements in presentation and discussion are necessary before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language requires further revision throughout the manuscript. Numerous grammatical issues, awkward sentence structures, and inconsistencies in terminology. Professional language editing is strongly recommended.

Author Response

Section 1.The topic is relevant and aligns well with current interests in antibiotic alternatives and sustainable livestock production.

However, several aspects of the manuscript should be improved before publication.

Answer 1. We have revised the introduction section, replacing outdated references with the latest literature on the application of probiotics in swine farming.

Section 2.The description of the probiotic preparation should be expanded. More detailed information regarding the microbial strains, viability stability, and product characterization would improve reproducibility.

Answer 2. The composite probiotic preparation consists of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bacillus subtilis at a ratio of 1:1:1.The company has not yet disclosed the specific strains of the compound probiotics to the public.

Section 3.The statistical analysis section should be clarified. The manuscript states that one-way ANOVA and LSD tests were used, but assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were not discussed.

Answer 3.We have already discussed the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance in the statistical analysis section.

Section 4.Several tables could be improved for readability and consistency. Group names such as “test team I/II/III” should be replaced with clearer terminology (e.g., Treatment 1, Treatment 2, Treatment 3). In addition, formatting of units and superscripts should be carefully revised.

Answer 4.We have uniformly renamed "test team I/II/III" in the table to "Experimental Group I/II/III," and corrected both the unit format and superscript formatting.

Section 5.Some results require deeper interpretation in the Discussion section. The discussion is currently largely descriptive and should better explain the biological mechanisms behind the observed effects, especially regarding immune responses and antioxidant indicators.

Answer 5.We have conducted a more in-depth discussion on certain results, including those related to immune responses and antioxidant indicators.

Section 6.The authors should discuss certain contradictory findings more critically. For example, the lower piglet birth weight in probiotic groups compared with the control group deserves additional explanation.

Answer 6.We discussed certain contradictory research findings, such as the phenomenon of lower birth weights in a group of piglets administered with a specific probiotic regimen.

Section 7.The conclusion section should be strengthened by emphasizing the practical implications and limitations of the study.

Answer 7.In the conclusion section, we have emphasized the practical significance and limitations of this study.

Section 8.Overall, the study has potential value for the field of animal nutrition and sustainable pig production, but substantial improvements in presentation and discussion are necessary before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Answer 8.We have made revisions to the discussion section, and these changes are highlighted in red throughout the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Answer:Thank you for your feedback. We have made partial revisions to the sentence.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Simple summary: Briefly state the composition of the probiotic. Correct the numerical representation of citations in the body of the text. Section 2.5.3. Why was cranial vena cava puncture chosen instead of jugular vein puncture? Section 3. Considering the favorable results in the performance of sows and weaned piglets, I suggest a brief analysis of the cost impact of this probiotic supplementation. Since it is a high-value biological product, it is worthwhile to verify if there is an economic advantage in its use. Knowing that a daily dose of 4g/kg is high and may be unfeasible depending on the cost of the product. Section 4. I believe that the DISCUSSION is well-founded and the results obtained are in agreement with what the previous literature predicts. Section 5. The CONCLUSION may suggest greater applications of the studied protocol within swine production and in other species.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Section 1. Simple summary: Briefly state the composition of the probiotic. The numerical citation format of references in the text has been revised and marked in red.

Answer 1. The composite probiotic preparation consists of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bacillus subtilis at a ratio of 1:1:1.The company has not yet disclosed the specific strains of the compound probiotics to the public. The numerical citation format of references in the main text has been revised.

Section 2.5.3. Why was cranial vena cava puncture chosen instead of jugular vein puncture?

Answer 2. Blood collection from pigs prefers the anterior vena cava over the jugular vein. This is mainly because the anterior vena cava is thicker, fixed in position, delivers large blood flow, allows rapid operation, and suits pigs of all ages, especially piglets. In contrast, the jugular vein is thinner, prone to shifting, difficult to restrain, yields limited blood volume and carries higher risks.

Section 3. Considering the favorable results in the performance of sows and weaned piglets, I suggest a brief analysis of the cost impact of this probiotic supplementation. Since it is a high-value biological product, it is worthwhile to verify if there is an economic advantage in its use. Knowing that a daily dose of 4g/kg is high and may be unfeasible depending on the cost of the product.

Answer 3. Blood collection from pigs prefers the anterior vena cava over the jugular vein. This is mainly because the anterior vena cava is thicker, fixed in position, delivers large blood flow, allows rapid operation, and suits pigs of all ages, especially piglets. In contrast, the jugular vein is thinner, prone to shifting, difficult to restrain, yields limited blood volume and carries higher risks.

Section 4. I believe that the DISCUSSION is well-founded and the results obtained are in agreement with what the previous literature predicts.

Answer 4. Thank you for your comment. The experimental results are indeed consistent with some conclusions in existing literature.

Section 5. The CONCLUSION may suggest greater applications of the studied protocol within swine production and in other species.

Answer 5. Thank you for your question. We will further explore the application value of this experimental scheme in fattening pig breeding in the follow-up work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to Author

The manuscript describes the effects of Compound Probiotics on Production Performance, Apparent Digestion Rate of nutrients, and Serum Index of Pigs at Different Stages. Overall, the topic of the manuscript is of interest.

However, a major revision is required to improve the data presentation. The definition of compound probiotics needs to be revised throughout the whole manuscript. Please revise the name of the microorganism species. It should be italic. The typing error must be rechecked. The references cited in the paragraph were not in the correct form for the journal. [ ] was missing.

The abbreviations used throughout the whole manuscript need to be rewritten. For example, “compound probiotics” should be like chemical compounds. It does not refer to the mixed probiotics used in the diet. I would suggest using “probiotic mix” instead of compound probiotics.

The discussion needs to be rewritten because the authors provided many general theories and reported other studies. The authors only reported the results and lacked an explanation. I would suggest trying to strengthen the sentences.

Specific comments

Simple Summary

The simple summary should be stated for the overall of experiment. Please becarfully follow the author guideline.

Line 18: This study clarified the optimal supplemental dosage of probiotics for pigs at different breeding stages, which can improve breeding efficiency, optimize livestock and poultry health and breeding environment, and provide scientific reference and application basis for the green and healthy breeding of pigs.

I recommend rewriting, as Livestock and poultry experiments were not included. Please be more specific about the pig.

Abstract: It was a copy of the Simple Summary.

The whole part of the abstract needs rewriting.

Line 27-37: the authors need to be more specific with the change of increase and decrease, including the number (if possible), rather than a general report.
Type and dosage of probiotics such as yeast, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bacillus subtilis
stages of pigs, breed, age
The reproductive performance and colostrum immune level of sows, pollutant

enhanced the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and serum immune

In the introduction section,

Please add a reference to similar studies on the probiotic use with a more specific strain. Since the probiotic properties are strain-dependent. The statement of the genus level did not reflect the probiotic properties,
indicating the novelty to the study. Why does the study differ from the current research on probiotic feed in the pig diet or commercial probiotic pig diet?
The typing error must be rechecked.
Please revise the name of the microorganism species. It should be italic.
The references cited in the paragraph were not in the correct form for the journal. [ ] was missing.
I would recommend rewriting this objective. Now it was not clear. The author should highlight and include the hypotheses.
Line 94-95, 101-102: The contents were hard to follow for the reader. What do the probiotic preparations mean?

For the materials and methods section, many points were unclear, and the abbreviations used.

Line 106-108: Please consider changing the word “Compound probiotics”

Please provide the strains of these microorganisms.

The proximate analysis of 3 diet groups should be provided for the comparison of the nutrients.

2.1 Experimental Design and Grouping were hard to follow for the reader.

I would suggest the authors provide a figure for the experiment design of sow and the piglet.

Line 113-115: Thirty-six second-parity Yorkshire sows at the late gestation stage (80th day of gestation) were selected and randomly divided into a control group, Experimental Group Ⅰ and Experimental Group Ⅱ, with 12 sows in each group and one sow per replicate.

I recommend rewriting. Could the authors make it clear what the meaning of one sow per replicate.

Why did the authors choose the levels of supplement with 2 g/kg and 3 g/kg? Are there references or calculations of the amount?
Please clarify how to collect the feces? Which part? Rectum or floor?
Please add the reference or explain “the piglets with a body weight less than 800 g were defined as weak piglets)”

7 Statistical Analysis. The details of statistics were too less and limited for reputation. Please provide the model of stats use, experimental unit, random effect, fix effect.

The result

Table 3: The alphabet should be the same in the Items and the column. It should be a capital letter. Please recheck the whole manuscript.
In Table 7, please use the full name of the items (CP, EE, CF, GE, Ca). It was hard for the reader to follow.

The discussion is weak. It should be strengthened. Now there were many general theory in each paragraph. Please discuss how the probiotic affects the results and link your results with the other studies, which were stated in each paragraph.

For example: Line 387 – 396: from “The results showed that when the dietary addition level was 2 g/kg, the birth weight of piglets …..which was consistent with the trend of the results in this experiment.

There was no explanation for the result of the experiment. Please integrate and link your results with the other studies and provide the cause and impact of the probiotic mix for sows and piglets.

Please also revise the other paragraphs accordingly.

Line 399-403: The research concludes that yeast culture supplementation can improve feed intake during lactation and enhance the growth performance of piglets 35. In this experiment, the birth weight of piglets in the experimental groups was relatively low, so further experiments are needed to adjust the dietary ratio of pregnant sows to increase the birth weight of piglets.

Please add more detail of yeast culture supplementation, which strain? Which level?

Line 406-431: it needs to be clearer for immune indicators

“ These findings indicate that by adding probiotic preparations, piglets in the experimental groups obtained more antibodies from breast milk, which is conducive to exerting their growth potential. “

The conclusion for the more antibodies in breast milk did not apply for IgA, as the test I result was lower than the control. Please explain this case. The probiotics did not give a consistent result according to the level of use.

Typing error for CO2, NH3, H2S

Please rewrite and provide the data support: line 446 NH3 concentration decreased with the increase in the amount of Compound probiotics. “The underlying mechanism may be that Compound probiotics preparations can improve the protein digestion of pregnant sows.”
Line 458-464: Now there were many general theories in each paragraph. These data could use for support the result and explain more why “an insufficient amount of probiotics reaching the intestinal tract line 474”
The feed-to-gain ratio of the experimental groups was lower than that of the control group, which was consistent with the experimental results of Xie et al. (2025) and Yang (2019). Please discuss how the probiotic affects the results, and link your results
Line 494, 530-534: Please discuss how the probiotic affects the results and link your results
Line 568-575: The authors should discuss why the immune indicators in the serum and colostrum of lactating sows differ. It seems like it influence on the result of the piglet.

The conclusion part. Please rewrite the conclusion to be more novel and summarize all important results with the numbers from each factor or each experiment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Section Ⅰ.The manuscript describes the effects of Compound Probiotics on Production Performance, Apparent Digestion Rate of nutrients, and Serum Index of Pigs at Different Stages. Overall, the topic of the manuscript is of interest.

Answer Ⅰ.Thank you for reading and reviewing.

Section Ⅱ.However, a major revision is required to improve the data presentation. The definition of compound probiotics needs to be revised throughout the whole manuscript. Please revise the name of the microorganism species. It should be italic. The typing error must be rechecked. The references cited in the paragraph were not in the correct form for the journal. [ ] was missing.

Answer Ⅱ.We have revised the data tables and specified the strains and proportions of the combined probiotics in the "Experimental Materials" section; however, the exact strain models have not yet been publicly disclosed by the company. The microbial species have been changed to italics. The reference formatting ("[]") cited in the paragraphs has been fully modified.

Section Ⅲ.The abbreviations used throughout the whole manuscript need to be rewritten. For example, “compound probiotics” should be like chemical compounds. It does not refer to the mixed probiotics used in the diet. I would suggest using “probiotic mix” instead of compound probiotics.

Answer Ⅲ.We adopted a commercial compound probiotic preparation (Yikele) in our research. The term "Compound probiotics" is the appropriate expression, as it refers to a formulated product rather than a simple mixture.

Section Ⅳ.The discussion needs to be rewritten because the authors provided many general theories and reported other studies. The authors only reported the results and lacked an explanation. I would suggest trying to strengthen the sentences.

Answer Ⅳ.Thank you for your feedback; we have added more explanatory notes to the discussion section.

Specific comments

Simple Summary

Section 1.The simple summary should be stated for the overall of experiment. Please becarfully follow the author guideline.

I recommend rewriting, as Livestock and poultry experiments were not included. Please be more specific about the pig.

Answer 1.We have rewritten this section and removed inappropriate text.

Section 2.Abstract: It was a copy of the Simple Summary.

The whole part of the abstract needs rewriting.

Line 27-37: the authors need to be more specific with the change of increase and decrease, including the number (if possible), rather than a general report.

Type and dosage of probiotics such as yeast, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bacillus subtilis

stages of pigs, breed, age.

The reproductive performance and colostrum immune level of sows, pollutant enhanced the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and serum immune.

Answer 2.We have revised the abstract section to include specific numerical changes, details on probiotic types and dosages, the growth stages, breeds, and ages of pigs, as well as information on sow reproductive performance and colostrum immune levels; pollutants were found to enhance growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and serum immunity.

Section 3.In the introduction section,

Please add a reference to similar studies on the probiotic use with a more specific strain. Since the probiotic properties are strain-dependent. The statement of the genus level did not reflect the probiotic properties,

indicating the novelty to the study. Why does the study differ from the current research on probiotic feed in the pig diet or commercial probiotic pig diet?

The typing error must be rechecked.

Please revise the name of the microorganism species. It should be italic.

The references cited in the paragraph were not in the correct form for the journal. [ ] was missing.

I would recommend rewriting this objective. Now it was not clear. The author should highlight and include the hypotheses.

Line 94-95, 101-102: The contents were hard to follow for the reader. What do the probiotic preparations mean?

Answer 3.We have supplemented the literature on probiotics.
Most existing studies either describe probiotics only at the genus level (e.g., specifying only Lactobacillus or Bacillus) or employ commercial probiotics with opaque strain compositions and ratios, failing to demonstrate strain-specific effects. In contrast, this study employed three clearly defined functional strains (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Bacillus subtilis in a 1:1:1 ratio) combined with a standardized encapsulation protocol, thereby addressing the issue of ambiguous strain definitions prevalent in similar studies. Moreover, most comparable studies focused solely on pig growth or individual immune parameters, neglecting synergistic improvements in farming environments. This study not only systematically evaluated host performance—including reproduction, growth, digestion, antioxidant capacity, and immune function—but also concurrently monitored changes in air pollutants within livestock facilities, better aligning with the comprehensive demands of practical production practices.
The microbial species name has been changed to italics.
The reference format in the paragraph has been uniformly changed to "[]".
The research objectives section has been rewritten. The term "probiotic preparations" mentioned in Lines 94–95 and 101–102 of the article refers to composite probiotics, which now have a unified designation.

Section 4.For the materials and methods section, many points were unclear, and the abbreviations used.

Line 106-108: Please consider changing the word “Compound probiotics”

Please provide the strains of these microorganisms.

The proximate analysis of 3 diet groups should be provided for the comparison of the nutrients.

Answer 4.All abbreviations in the article are explained.

This compound probiotic is formulated with Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bacillus subtilis at a ratio of 1:1:1, with the total viable count no less than 1.1×10⁹ CFU/g. The specific bacterial species have not yet been disclosed to the public.

We prepared a corn-soybean meal-based diet. The specific formulations and nutritional composition levels are presented in Table 1 (porcine feed formulation) and Table 2 (piglet feed formulation).

Section 5. 2.2.1 Experimental Design and Grouping were hard to follow for the reader.

I would suggest the authors provide a figure for the experiment design of sow and the piglet.

Line 113-115: Thirty-six second-parity Yorkshire sows at the late gestation stage (80th day of gestation) were selected and randomly divided into a control group, Experimental Group Ⅰ and Experimental Group Ⅱ, with 12 sows in each group and one sow per replicate.

I recommend rewriting. Could the authors make it clear what the meaning of one sow per replicate.

Answer 5.In this experiment, sows were reared individually in single pens. Each sow served as one independent biological replicate, meaning there were 12 independent replicates for each treatment.

Section 6.Why did the authors choose the levels of supplement with 2 g/kg and 3 g/kg? Are there references or calculations of the amount?

Please clarify how to collect the feces? Which part? Rectum or floor?

Please add the reference or explain “the piglets with a body weight less than 800 g were defined as weak piglets)”

Answer 6.The efficacy of the composite probiotic used in this study and its optimal dosage for inclusion in pig diets at different production stages remain uncertain; therefore, this experiment was conducted to investigate the effects and optimal dosing levels of this composite probiotic formulation.

Fecal samples were collected from each piglet using the digital rectal stimulation method.

Piglets weighing less than 800 grams are defined as weak piglets with reference to (Salgado-López P, Llauradó-Calero E, García-Vilana S, Sánchez-Molina D, Brun A, Font-I-Furnols M, Gasa J, Solà-Oriol D. Evaluation of organ and skeletal physiological characteristics for improved classification of growth-restricted newborn piglets. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):34328.)

Section 7. 7 Statistical Analysis. The details of statistics were too less and limited for reputation. Please provide the model of stats use, experimental unit, random effect, fix effect.

Answer 7.Thank you for pointing out the issues. We have revised the statistical analysis section.

Section 8.The result

Table 3: The alphabet should be the same in the Items and the column. It should be a capital letter. Please recheck the whole manuscript.

In Table 7, please use the full name of the items (CP, EE, CF, GE, Ca). It was hard for the reader to follow.

Answer 8.We have explained the abbreviations in the table.

Section 9.The discussion is weak. It should be strengthened. Now there were many general theory in each paragraph. Please discuss how the probiotic affects the results and link your results with the other studies, which were stated in each paragraph.

There was no explanation for the result of the experiment. Please integrate and link your results with the other studies and provide the cause and impact of the probiotic mix for sows and piglets.

Please also revise the other paragraphs accordingly.

Answer 9.In this article, we have made partial revisions to the discussion section and analyzed potential issues and mechanisms that may affect the experimental outcomes.

Section 10.Line 399-403: The research concludes that yeast culture supplementation can improve feed intake during lactation and enhance the growth performance of piglets 35. In this experiment, the birth weight of piglets in the experimental groups was relatively low, so further experiments are needed to adjust the dietary ratio of pregnant sows to increase the birth weight of piglets.

Please add more detail of yeast culture supplementation, which strain? Which level?

Answer 10.We have revised this section by adding the following probiotics: Lactobacillus plantarum B90 (CGMCC1.12934) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae P11 (CGMCC2.3854).

Section 11.Line 406-431: it needs to be clearer for immune indicators

Answer 11.In the article, we clarified the terminology for relevant immune indicators and provided an explanation for the lower IgA detection levels in the experimental group compared to the control group.

Section 12.Typing error for CO2, NH3, H2S.

Answer 12.We have modified the formatting in the article.

Section 13.Please rewrite and provide the data support: line 446 NH3 concentration decreased with the increase in the amount of Compound probiotics. “The underlying mechanism may be that Compound probiotics preparations can improve the protein digestion of pregnant sows.”

Answer 13.We have revised the discussion in this section.

Section 14.Line 458-464: Now there were many general theories in each paragraph. These data could use for support the result and explain more why “an insufficient amount of probiotics reaching the intestinal tract line 474”

The feed-to-gain ratio of the experimental groups was lower than that of the control group, which was consistent with the experimental results of Xie et al. (2025) and Yang (2019). Please discuss how the probiotic affects the results, and link your results

Line 494, 530-534: Please discuss how the probiotic affects the results and link your results

Line 568-575: The authors should discuss why the immune indicators in the serum and colostrum of lactating sows differ. It seems like it influence on the result of the piglet.

Answer 14.In this article, we have re-examined and revised the discussions on these sections.

Section 15.The conclusion part. Please rewrite the conclusion to be more novel and summarize all important results with the numbers from each factor or each experiment.

Answer 15.We sincerely appreciate your feedback and have revised the conclusion section based on the experimental data.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All suggestions have been addressed as requested, and the manuscript has been substantially improved. But there are more errors:

Table 6. “Feed Intak”, “Diarrhea ate”.

Table 10. "IL-4 (Interleukin-6)"

There is an error in line 590 (Error! Reference source not found)

Table 3. Fresh weight at birth - rephrase this example "Litter birth weight"

Number of live births per litter - "Number of liveborn piglets"

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language requires more revision throughout the manuscript. Numerous grammatical issues, awkward sentence structures. Professional language editing is still strongly recommended.

Author Response

Section 1.All suggestions have been addressed as requested, and the manuscript has been substantially improved. But there are more errors:

Answer 1.Thank you very much for your review and corrections. We will revise the following issues strictly and mark the revised text parts in the article with green shading.

Section 2.Table 6. “Feed Intak”, “Diarrhea ate”.

Answer 2.Table 6: We have revised "Feed Intak" and "Diarrhea ate" in the article to "Feed Intake" and "Diarrhea rate".

Section 3.Table 10. "IL-4 (Interleukin-6)"

Answer 3.Table 10: We have corrected "IL-4 (Interleukin-6)" in the article to "IL-4 (Interleukin-4)".

Section 4.There is an error in line 590 (Error! Reference source not found)

Answer 4.We have fixed the issue of the prompt " Error! Reference source not found" appearing in the document, and the referenced sources can now be located successfully.

Section 5.Table 3. Fresh weight at birth - rephrase this example "Litter birth weight"

Number of live births per litter - "Number of liveborn piglets"

Answer 5.Table 3: We highly appreciate your revision suggestions and examples provided. We have replaced inappropriate terms in the manuscript as follows: "Fresh weight at birth"- "Litter birth weight" ;"Number of live births per litter"-"Number of liveborn piglets".

Section 6.Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language requires more revision throughout the manuscript. Numerous grammatical issues, awkward sentence structures. Professional language editing is still strongly recommended.

Answer 6.We are very grateful to the reviewers for their valuable comments on the English language quality of this manuscript. Following your suggestions, we have carefully revised the entire text sentence by sentence to correct all grammatical errors and improve awkward expressions. All linguistic revisions have been highlighted with green shading in the revised manuscript for your reference.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I suggest a careful review for minor spelling errors.

Author Response

Section 1.I suggest a careful review for minor spelling errors.

Answer 1.We sincerely appreciate the expert's review and guidance. We will read through the entire manuscript word by word, thoroughly check and correct all spelling, grammatical and typographical errors in the paper, and polish the English expressions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. This version of the manuscript is acceptable.

Author Response

Section 1.Thank you for the revision. This version of the manuscript is acceptable.

Answer 1.Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable revision suggestions! We stand ready to cooperate at any time should supplementary or refinements to the test-related content be required in the future.