Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well structured and the methods and results are well described in general.

However I would suggest a deep review in some quality aspects in terms of format and presentation.

+ Equations, tables and some figures (such as Fig.9) seem to be added as an image and the quality is poor. I suggest to fix this.

+ Eq. 3 is not sufficiently described.

+ Many terms must be written as math expresions (line 97). Use subindexes and math formats for variables.

+ There is an error of characters in line108.

+ Wrong format when referencing images (line 160, 163,....). The point should not appear.

+ Some blank spaces (ej. line 276)

+ Table 1. Missing one parameter in the title.

+ Figure 11 is not aligned.

+ Fig.12: missing (a) and (b)

+ Figs 13 and 14: (a) is not centered.

I would also suggest to add more references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc