Review Reports
- Bingcheng Zhang1,2,
- Rongqing Liang1,2 and
- Jiali Li1,2
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Takashi Okayasu Reviewer 2: Giorgia Liguori Reviewer 3: Walter Stefanoni
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The objective of topic was clearly understood. However, about items directly commented in your current version of manuscript should be reconsidered well.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find below my suggestions:
- L118-121: please specify more details related to the instruments used, as well as, JMB5003, etc., which the manufacturer? is not clear about;
- L193: the discussion of the data should be improved, taking into account previous research;
- The reference section should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The article can not be read and analyzed properly since the very low quality image used and the unproper refecencing within the text. Unless this, it is not possible to further proceed with the reviewing process.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer confirmed the improvements of the manuscript for the revision items corresponding to the previous reviewer's comments. However, the originality and novelty of the study is not high enough because the investigated test conditions and theoretical discussions were not new. The use of the results obtained will be limited.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors improved the article according to the suggestions and it is clear and interesting to read