Exergoeconomic Analysis of a Milk Pasteurization System Assisted by Geothermal Energy with the Use of an Organic Rankine Cycle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper innovatively proposes an integrated system for pasteurizing milk using geothermal energy, which combines ORC power generation and vapor compression refrigeration. The economic analysis of the system is conducted using the Specific Exergy Costing (SPECO) method to analyze the economic of the system. The paper is generally well written, with detailed data and strong systematic structure. My comments on this article are as follows:

1. The article does not consider the cost of geothermal wells, but in actual engineering, the cost of geothermal wells often occupies a significant proportion. For example, the investment cost of geothermal wells at 80-110°C is often over 2 million US dollars. It is suggested to further assess the impact of geothermal well costs on the final cost of pasteurized milk to more accurately reflect the economic viability of the system.
2. It is recommended to supplement the comparison of ORC operation at 7000 hours per year to verify the optimization of power costs.
3. The article lacks a description of geothermal water recharge schemes, which are critical to project sustainability.
4. Key component optimization recommendations are missing. For example, although the regenerator exhibits the highest exergy destruction, no improvement solutions are provided.
5. To better facilitate understanding of the working processes of the two cycles involving the working fluid R134a in ORC and COOLING CYCLE, it is recommended to supplement the T-S diagram or lgP-h diagram of the two cycles based on Figure 1.
6. Could you please check if the ordinate labeling in Figure 3 is correct?

Author Response

In the new manuscript, the texts added after the referees' recommendations are written in blue to make the text easy to follow.

This paper innovatively proposes an integrated system for pasteurizing milk using geothermal energy, which combines ORC power generation and vapor compression refrigeration. The economic analysis of the system is conducted using the Specific Exergy Costing (SPECO) method to analyze the economic of the system. The paper is generally well written, with detailed data and strong systematic structure. My comments on this article are as follows:

1. The article does not consider the cost of geothermal wells, but in actual engineering, the cost of geothermal wells often occupies a significant proportion. For example, the investment cost of geothermal wells at 80-110°C is often over 2 million US dollars. It is suggested to further assess the impact of geothermal well costs on the final cost of pasteurized milk to more accurately reflect the economic viability of the system.
   
   Thank you for this important observation regarding geothermal well costs, which are indeed critical for realistic economic assessment. We acknowledge that our initial analysis excluded well drilling costs, which can represent a substantial portion of total project investment. In response to your comment, we have conducted additional calculations incorporating geothermal well costs estimated at $430,000 for our system operating conditions (80-110°C). The revised manuscript now includes a comprehensive analysis showing the impact of well costs on pasteurized milk manufacturing costs under different operating scenarios (2400h vs 7000h annually). While our calculated well cost is lower than the $2 million figure you mentioned, this may reflect differences in geological conditions, well depth, and regional cost variations. The inclusion of well costs provides a more accurate representation of the system's economic viability and demonstrates the critical importance of operating hours in achieving cost-effective operation. Please check lines between 552 and 565.
   
   
2. It is recommended to supplement the comparison of ORC operation at 7000 hours per year to verify the optimization of power costs.
   
   Thank you for this valuable recommendation to enhance our economic analysis. We have supplemented the manuscript with a comprehensive comparison of ORC operation at 7000 hours per year versus the baseline 2400 hours annually. This extended analysis demonstrates the significant optimization potential in power costs, showing electricity manufacturing costs decreasing from 0.61-0.90 USD.kWh⁻¹ (at 2400h) to 0.21-0.31 USD.kWh⁻¹ (at 7000h) across the GST range of 80-110°C. The comparison verifies that increased operating hours substantially improve the economic viability of the ORC system by distributing fixed costs over greater electricity production, thus validating the optimization strategy for power cost reduction. Please check line Please check lines between 552 and 565.
   
   
3. The article lacks a description of geothermal water recharge schemes, which are critical to project sustainability.
   
   Thank you for this important observation. We acknowledge that the original manuscript lacked a comprehensive description of geothermal water recharge schemes, which are indeed critical for project sustainability. In response to your comment, we have incorporated a detailed reinjection system into the study. Please check lines between 178 and 184
   
   

The geothermal water recharge scheme has been added to the left side of Figure 1, illustrating the complete closed-loop geothermal fluid circulation system.

4. Key component optimization recommendations are missing. For example, although the regenerator exhibits the highest exergy destruction, no improvement solutions are provided.

Thank you for identifying this critical gap in our analysis. We have addressed this concern by adding a comprehensive section on key component optimization recommendations in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we now provide detailed improvement solutions for the regenerator, which exhibits the highest exergy destruction, including strategies such as enhanced heat exchanger design, optimized flow arrangements, and improved heat transfer surface configurations. Similar optimization recommendations have been included for other major system components to provide practical guidance for performance enhancement rather than merely identifying problem areas. Please check lines between 492 and 509.

 

5. To better facilitate understanding of the working processes of the two cycles involving the working fluid R134a in ORC and COOLING CYCLE, it is recommended to supplement the T-S diagram or lgP-h diagram of the two cycles based on Figure 1.

Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree that thermodynamic diagrams are essential for better understanding of the working processes involving R134a in both the ORC and cooling cycles. In response to your recommendation, we have added comprehensive T-S (Temperature-Entropy) diagrams for both cycles as Figure 2 in the revised manuscript.

6. Could you please check if the ordinate labeling in Figure 3 is correct?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have identified and corrected an error in the ordinate labelling of Figure 3. The corrected figure has been updated in the revised manuscript with the appropriate axis labels. We apologize for this oversight and appreciate your careful review of the manuscript. Please note that Figure 3 has been changed to Figure 4 in the new manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors need to address the following suggestions before this manuscript is considered for publication:

1. The novelty is not clearly distinguished from prior studies (e.g., Yildirim & Genç, Singh et al.). Explicitly state what is unique about this study (e.g., ORC configuration, temperature range, cost analysis).
2. Broaden the discussion on how this concept can be extended to other low-grade heat sources (solar, waste heat) and justify this claim with preliminary reasoning or literature.
3. Provide justification for thermodynamic assumptions (constant milk specific heat, fixed condenser/evaporator temperatures, reference conditions). Discuss sensitivity of results to these assumptions.
4. Explain why R134a was chosen as the working fluid for the ORC. Compare briefly with alternatives used in similar temperature ranges (e.g., R245fa, R1234ze).
5. Clarify the economic parameters used in the SPECO method (interest rate, maintenance factor, operating hours). Include cost breakdown (capital vs. operational) and discuss applicability to different regions.
6. The study assumes a 1 kg/s milk flow rate; discuss scalability to industrial scales (hundreds to thousands of kg/h) and whether results scale linearly.
7. Provide deeper explanation for why the regenerator shows the highest exergy destruction (e.g., mismatched temperature profiles or high heat transfer area).
8. The decrease in overall energy and exergy efficiencies with higher geothermal temperature contradicts typical expectations; clearly explain the role of decreasing flow rates and system configuration in this trend.
9. Electricity cost (610–900 USD/MWh) is much higher than literature (50–450 USD/MWh). Perform sensitivity analysis on operating hours or utilization to show cost reduction potential.
10. The cost of pasteurized milk (3.76–6.53 USD/ton) is far lower than other studies (e.g., 35 USD/ton). Verify calculations and discuss whether certain costs (e.g., labor, auxiliary equipment) are excluded.
11. Compare specific manufacturing costs with literature more carefully; normalize currencies and plant sizes for meaningful comparison.
12. Expand literature coverage to include recent studies (2022–2024) on advanced ORC systems, nanofluid heat exchangers, and food-processing energy integration.
13. Improve comparison depth in Table 6 by clearly noting differences in system scale, assumptions, and cost bases to avoid misleading comparisons.
14. Improve figure clarity: add units on axes (e.g., USD.h⁻¹, %) and legends; explain solid vs dashed lines in captions.
15. Provide intermediate calculation examples (e.g., LMTD, Nusselt number application) to help readers follow methodology.
16. Ensure consistency in table formatting (e.g., use same significant figures, clear headings).
17. Discuss operational feasibility considering variable geothermal resource conditions (temperature/flow fluctuations).
18. Include a qualitative note on environmental benefits (e.g., CO₂ savings vs conventional pasteurization) to strengthen industrial relevance.
19. Highlight optimization opportunities (e.g., improving regenerator design or ORC operating conditions) rather than just reporting results.
20. Revise grammar and sentence structure to improve readability (many long sentences, awkward phrases).
21. Ensure consistent notation for thermodynamic variables (Tref, T0, exergy terms) throughout the text.
22. Expand conclusions to include practical implications and directions for future work rather than restating numerical findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Several sentences are overly long and contain multiple clauses, making them difficult to read (e.g., sentences in the Introduction and Results sections). Breaking them into shorter sentences would improve clarity.
2. There are occasional grammatical errors such as missing articles (“the”, “a”) and subject-verb disagreements (e.g., “result list… was presented at Table 6” should be “in Table 6”).
3. Technical terms are sometimes inconsistently used (e.g., “generator temperature” vs “geothermal resource temperature”). Ensure uniform terminology throughout.
4. Some phrases are awkward or unclear (e.g., “pasteurization parameters also did not change for all geothermal temperatures” could be rephrased as “pasteurization parameters remained constant across all geothermal temperatures”).
5. Redundant phrases such as “with the increase of GST” are repeatedly used; consider replacing with “as GST increased” for conciseness.
6. Explanations of trends (e.g., efficiency decreases) are repeated multiple times without adding new insights; condensing these sections would make the manuscript more focused.
7. Thermodynamic symbols (Tref, T0, h, s) and abbreviations (PEC, TOCR) should be uniformly formatted; sometimes they appear in different forms (e.g., subscripts not aligned, inconsistent italics).
8. Ensure consistent spacing and notation for units (e.g., “USD.ton−1” vs “USD/ton”).
9. Captions are too brief and do not fully describe the figure contents. Adding brief descriptions of variables and trends will improve readability for non-expert readers.
10. The manuscript is understandable but would benefit from professional English editing or thorough proofreading by a fluent technical writer to correct minor grammatical issues, streamline phrasing, and ensure consistency in terminology and notation.

Author Response

In the new manuscript, the texts added after the referees' recommendations are written in blue to make the text easy to follow.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors need to address the following suggestions before this manuscript is considered for publication:

1. The novelty is not clearly distinguished from prior studies (e.g., Yildirim & Genç, Singh et al.). Explicitly state what is unique about this study (e.g., ORC configuration, temperature range, cost analysis).
   
   Thank you for highlighting the need to better distinguish the novelty of our work from prior studies. We have addressed this concern by explicitly stating the unique contributions of this study in the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript now includes a dedicated section that explicitly outlines what makes this study unique and its distinct contributions to the existing literature. We appreciate your guidance in improving the clarity of our research contributions. Please check lines between 110 and 115.
   
   
2. Broaden the discussion on how this concept can be extended to other low-grade heat sources (solar, waste heat) and justify this claim with preliminary reasoning or literature.
   
   Thank you for this valuable suggestion, and we have expanded the manuscript to include a comprehensive discussion on extending the proposed concept to other low-grade heat sources (solar thermal and waste heat). Please check lines between 605 and 607.
   
   
3. Provide justification for thermodynamic assumptions (constant milk specific heat, fixed condenser/evaporator temperatures, reference conditions). Discuss sensitivity of results to these assumptions.
   
   Thank you for raising this important point regarding the thermodynamic assumptions made in our study. We have added a dedicated section justifying the key assumptions (constant milk specific heat, fixed condenser/evaporator temperatures) and provided a sensitivity analysis demonstrating that variations in these parameters have minimal impact on the overall system performance and economic results. Please check lines between 194 and 199.
   
   
4. Explain why R134a was chosen as the working fluid for the ORC. Compare briefly with alternatives used in similar temperature ranges (e.g., R245fa, R1234ze).
   
   Thank you for requesting clarification on the working fluid selection. We have added a detailed explanation of why R134a was chosen as the working fluid for the ORC system, including a comprehensive comparison with alternative refrigerants such as R245fa and R1234ze(E) in terms of thermodynamic performance, environmental impact, and system compatibility for the specific geothermal temperature range and integrated pasteurization application. Please check lines between 138 and 149.
   
   
5. Clarify the economic parameters used in the SPECO method (interest rate, maintenance factor, operating hours). Include cost breakdown (capital vs. operational) and discuss applicability to different regions.
   
   Thank you for requesting clarification on the economic methodology. We have added a comprehensive section explaining the SPECO economic parameters (interest rate, maintenance factor, operating hours) with detailed justification for their selection, provided a breakdown of capital versus operational costs. Please check lines between 281 and 292.
   
   
6. The study assumes a 1 kg/s milk flow rate; discuss scalability to industrial scales (hundreds to thousands of kg/h) and whether results scale linearly.
   
   Thank you for highlighting the scalability concern regarding the milk flow rate assumption. We have added a discussion addressing the scalability from the assumed 1 kg/s flow rate to industrial-scale operations, analyzing the non-linear scaling effects on heat transfer performance, ORC efficiency, and economic factors when transitioning to hundreds or thousands of kg/h milk processing capacities. Please check lines between 121 and 124.
   
   
   
7. Provide deeper explanation for why the regenerator shows the highest exergy destruction (e.g., mismatched temperature profiles or high heat transfer area).
   
   Thank you for requesting a more thorough analysis of the regenerator's exergy destruction characteristics. We have added a comprehensive explanation in the revised manuscript detailing why the regenerator exhibits the highest exergy destruction among system components. The discussion now includes analysis of temperature profile mismatches between hot and cold streams with heat recovery processes. This deeper technical insight helps readers understand the fundamental causes of exergy losses and provides a foundation for identifying potential improvement strategies in regenerator design. Please check lines between 492 and 509.
   
   
8. The decrease in overall energy and exergy efficiencies with higher geothermal temperature contradicts typical expectations; clearly explain the role of decreasing flow rates and system configuration in this trend.
   
   Thank you for raising this important point regarding the counterintuitive efficiency trends in our system. We have added a detailed explanation clarifying that decreasing energy and exergy efficiencies with higher GST result from reduced geothermal flow rates required to maintain constant pasteurization loads, leading to suboptimal ORC performance and heat exchanger operation. The analysis demonstrates that this trend stems from our specific system configuration constraints rather than fundamental thermodynamic principles, providing valuable insights for future optimization strategies. Please check lines between 521 and 539.
   
   
9. Electricity cost (610–900 USD/MWh) is much higher than literature (50–450 USD/MWh). Perform sensitivity analysis on operating hours or utilization to show cost reduction potential.
   
   Thank you for highlighting the discrepancy between our calculated electricity costs (610-900 USD/MWh) and typical literature values (50-450 USD/MWh). We have conducted a comprehensive sensitivity analysis on operating hours in the revised manuscript, demonstrating significant cost reduction potential when the system operates 7000 hours annually instead of 2400 hours. The analysis shows electricity costs decrease to 210-310 USD/MWh at extended operating hours, approaching literature ranges and confirming that higher capacity utilization is critical for achieving competitive electricity generation costs in small-scale geothermal ORC systems. Please check lines between 552 and 565.
   
   
10. The cost of pasteurized milk (3.76–6.53 USD/ton) is far lower than other studies (e.g., 35 USD/ton). Verify calculations and discuss whether certain costs (e.g., labor, auxiliary equipment) are excluded.
    
    Thank you for your feedback. Due to the high number of components and their prices, the Total Operating Cost Rate (TOCR) values in the aforementioned studies are significantly higher than in the current study. In the current study, the Initial Cost (Z_k) values were taken from literature calculation methods. Therefore, the Z_k values in the current study were lower. This lowered the TOCR of the current system. Therefore, both the electricity and milk manufacturing costs were lower than in other studies. Please check lines between 539 and 546.
    
    
11. Compare specific manufacturing costs with literature more carefully; normalize currencies and plant sizes for meaningful comparison.
    
    Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The answer of this point was given in answer 10. Please check line Please check lines between 539 and 546.
    
    
12. Expand literature coverage to include recent studies (2022–2024) on advanced ORC systems, nanofluid heat exchangers, and food-processing energy integration.
    
    The Introduction section has been expanded to include recent and relevant studies published between 2022 and 2024. These additions cover advancements in Organic Rankine Cycle systems, nanofluid-based heat exchanger applications, and energy integration approaches in food processing. The revised section reflects the current state of research more comprehensively, in line with the reviewer’s suggestion. Please check lines between 94 and 107.
    
    
13. Improve comparison depth in Table 6 by clearly noting differences in system scale, assumptions, and cost bases to avoid misleading comparisons.
    
    Thank you for this important observation regarding the comparison methodology in our results table. We have addressed this concern by significantly improving the comparison depth in the revised manuscript. Table 6 (now Table 7 in the new manuscript) has been enhanced to clearly indicate differences in system scale, underlying assumptions, and cost calculation bases among the compared studies. This revision ensures that readers can properly interpret the comparative results and avoid potentially misleading direct comparisons between studies with different methodological foundations. We appreciate your guidance in improving the scientific rigor of our comparative analysis.
    
    
14. Improve figure clarity: add units on axes (e.g., USD.h⁻¹, %) and legends; explain solid vs dashed lines in captions.
    
    We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback on figure presentation. We have added appropriate units to all axes (e.g., USD·h⁻¹, %) and included comprehensive legends for all figures. The figure captions have been expanded to clearly explain the distinction between solid and dashed lines throughout the manuscript. Please check lines between 345 and 347.
    
    
15. Provide intermediate calculation examples (e.g., LMTD, Nusselt number application) to help readers follow methodology.
    
    Thank you for your valuable comment and request. There are six heat exchangers in the system. R134a undergoes phase change in the condensers and evaporator of the refrigeration system. For these components, the refrigerant's dryness was divided into ten parts, ranging from 0 to 1, and the Nusselt numbers were calculated for each part, determining the area and number of plates. The same procedure was followed for heat exchangers with single-phase flow. In this case, dozens of calculations were performed for all heat exchangers at each geothermal resource temperature. Therefore, any intermediate calculation examples are omitted because they are deemed insufficient to provide complete clarity for the reader and are not considered relevant within the scope of the article.
    
    
16. Ensure consistency in table formatting (e.g., use same significant figures, clear headings).
    
    We appreciate the reviewer's attention to table formatting consistency. All tables have been thoroughly reviewed to ensure uniform significant figures and clear, descriptive headings throughout the manuscript. Please note that the tables are generated in LaTeX using MDPI's standard table format template, which maintains consistency with the journal's formatting requirements and cannot be modified from the prescribed style.
    
    
17. Discuss operational feasibility considering variable geothermal resource conditions (temperature/flow fluctuations).
    
    Thank you for your valuable comments. In this study, geothermal temperatures and fluid flow rates were assumed to be constant. In real-world applications, additional components can be used to prevent system operation from being disrupted by temperature and flow fluctuations.

18. Include a qualitative note on environmental benefits (e.g., CO₂ savings vs conventional pasteurization) to strengthen industrial relevance.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion to enhance the industrial relevance of our study through environmental impact assessment. We have added a comprehensive qualitative analysis of environmental benefits, including CO₂ emission savings calculations compared to conventional pasteurization systems, demonstrating that the proposed geothermal-powered system prevents 36.65-48.63 tons of CO₂ emissions annually depending on operating conditions. Please check lines between 510 and 515.

19. Highlight optimization opportunities (e.g., improving regenerator design or ORC operating conditions) rather than just reporting results.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion to enhance the practical relevance of our research. We have revised the manuscript to include a dedicated section highlighting specific optimization opportunities identified through our analysis. Rather than simply reporting results, we now discuss concrete improvement strategies such as regenerator design enhancements, ORC operating condition optimization, and system integration modifications that could improve both thermodynamic and economic performance. These optimization recommendations provide clear pathways for future research and practical implementation of the proposed geothermal-powered pasteurization system. Please check lines between 492 and 509.

20. Revise grammar and sentence structure to improve readability (many long sentences, awkward phrases).

The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve grammar, sentence structure, and overall readability. Long and complex sentences have been shortened or restructured for clarity. Awkward phrases have been corrected to ensure smooth and professional language throughout the text.

21. Ensure consistent notation for thermodynamic variables (Tref, T0, exergy terms) throughout the text.

All thermodynamic variables and symbols have been reviewed and updated for consistency throughout the manuscript. Notations such as Tref, T0, and exergy-related terms have been standardized in accordance with commonly accepted conventions. We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important detail.

22. Expand conclusions to include practical implications and directions for future work rather than restating numerical findings.

The conclusion section has been revised to include practical engineering implications derived from the analysis. Additionally, a clear list of future research directions has been added to guide potential extensions of this work. These changes were made in accordance with the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. Please check lines between 575 and 622.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

1. Several sentences are overly long and contain multiple clauses, making them difficult to read (e.g., sentences in the Introduction and Results sections). Breaking them into shorter sentences would improve clarity.
   
   Long and complex sentences in the Introduction and Results sections have been revised for clarity. Where necessary, sentences were broken into shorter and more readable structures. These changes were made to improve the overall readability of the manuscript as suggested.
   
   
2. There are occasional grammatical errors such as missing articles (“the”, “a”) and subject-verb disagreements (e.g., “result list… was presented at Table 6” should be “in Table 6”).
   
   Thank you for pointing out these grammatical errors. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected the issues you identified, including adding missing articles ("the", "a") where appropriate and fixing subject-verb disagreements such as changing "result list… was presented at Table 6" to "in Table 6". (It is now Table 7) A comprehensive proofreading has been conducted to ensure grammatical accuracy throughout the revised manuscript.
   
   
3. Technical terms are sometimes inconsistently used (e.g., “generator temperature” vs “geothermal resource temperature”). Ensure uniform terminology throughout.
   
   Thank you for highlighting the terminology inconsistencies in our manuscript. We have conducted a comprehensive review to ensure uniform usage of technical terms throughout the document, including standardizing expressions like "generator temperature" versus "geothermal resource temperature" to maintain consistency in their specific contexts. All technical terminology has been systematically checked and harmonized across the entire revised manuscript to eliminate any confusion or ambiguity.
   
   
4. Some phrases are awkward or unclear (e.g., “pasteurization parameters also did not change for all geothermal temperatures” could be rephrased as “pasteurization parameters remained constant across all geothermal temperatures”).
   
   Thank you for identifying this awkward phrasing in our manuscript. We have addressed this issue by completely rewriting the relevant paragraph, and the unclear expression "pasteurization parameters also did not change for all geothermal temperatures" has been entirely removed from the revised manuscript to improve clarity and readability.
   
   
5. Redundant phrases such as “with the increase of GST” are repeatedly used; consider replacing with “as GST increased” for conciseness.
   
   Thank you for identifying the redundant phrasing throughout the manuscript. We have revised all repetitive expressions, including replacing instances of "with the increase of GST" with more concise alternatives such as "as GST increased" to improve readability and eliminate unnecessary verbosity. The entire manuscript has been reviewed to remove similar redundant phrases and enhance overall conciseness.
   
   
6. Explanations of trends (e.g., efficiency decreases) are repeated multiple times without adding new insights; condensing these sections would make the manuscript more focused.
   
   All figure descriptions have been rewritten to eliminate repetitive trend explanations and to improve conciseness. Redundant statements have been removed, and each explanation now focuses on providing unique and relevant insights. These revisions were made to enhance the clarity and focus of the manuscript.
   
   
7. Thermodynamic symbols (Tref, T0, h, s) and abbreviations (PEC, TOCR) should be uniformly formatted; sometimes they appear in different forms (e.g., subscripts not aligned, inconsistent italics).
   
   We appreciate the reviewer's attention to symbol formatting consistency. All thermodynamic symbols (T_ref, T_0, h, s) and abbreviations (PEC, TOCR) have been reviewed for uniform presentation throughout the manuscript. Please note that when mathematical symbols appear in equations, LaTeX automatically applies italic formatting according to MDPI's template standards, which may create apparent formatting differences between in-text and equation contexts, but this follows the journal's required formatting protocol.
   
   
8. Ensure consistent spacing and notation for units (e.g., “USD.ton−1” vs “USD/ton”).
   
   We thank the reviewer for identifying the inconsistency in unit notation throughout the manuscript. All units have been standardized to the "USD·ton⁻¹" format with consistent spacing and notation. This revision ensures uniform presentation of units across all tables, figures, and text throughout the manuscript.
   
   
9. Captions are too brief and do not fully describe the figure contents. Adding brief descriptions of variables and trends will improve readability for non-expert readers.
   
   All figure captions have been revised to provide clearer and more informative descriptions. Key variables, units, and observed trends have been briefly explained to improve accessibility for non-expert readers. These updates were made in line with the reviewer’s helpful recommendation.
   
   
10. The manuscript is understandable but would benefit from professional English editing or thorough proofreading by a fluent technical writer to correct minor grammatical issues, streamline phrasing, and ensure consistency in terminology and notation.
    
    The entire manuscript has been thoroughly proofread to correct grammatical issues and improve sentence structure. Terminology and notation have been reviewed for consistency throughout the text. These revisions were made to enhance the overall clarity and technical quality of the manuscript.
    
    

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have incorporated the suggestions in the revised manuscript, and now the manuscript may be considered for the publication.