The Influence of Anisotropic Microstructures on the Ice Adhesion Performance of Rubber Surfaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review Feedback

1) Line 26-28 & Figure 5: The abstract states that smaller microstructure dimensions lead to increased surface roughness. However, the roughness data presented (Sa values in Figure 5) indicate that the 600#-SR sample (Sa=28.01 µm) possesses significantly higher roughness than the samples with smaller microstructures (1400#-SR Sa=14.29 µm; 2000#-SR Sa=15.19 µm). Could the authors clarify this apparent discrepancy between the abstract's assertion and the measured roughness values?   

2) Line 205-207 & 212-216: The results demonstrate that the 1400#-SR sample exhibited the minimum ice adhesion strength in both X (38.6 kPa) and Y (63.3 kPa) directions, surpassing the performance of samples with both larger (600#) and smaller (2000#) microstructures. The discussion attributes the subsequent increase in adhesion for the 2000#-SR sample primarily to its slightly higher roughness compared to 1400#-SR. Is surface roughness considered the dominant factor explaining this non-linear trend, or might other geometric parameters specific to the 1400# microstructure contribute significantly to its optimal icephobic performance?   

3) Line 331-335: The proposed mechanism for anisotropic ice adhesion posits that the interlocking component (Fb) is negligible when force is applied perpendicular to the microstructure recesses (X-direction) but significant when parallel (Y-direction). Considering the description of the features as recessed rectangular shapes, are there quantifiable differences in the geometric profile presented to the ice in the X versus Y directions that would account for the varying magnitude of Fb, beyond simple alignment with the recess direction?   

4) Line 297-307 & Overall Results: The mechanism analysis suggests that water penetration and subsequent freezing within microstructures create an interlocking effect that increases ice adhesion strength (Fb). How does this assertion reconcile with the principal finding that introducing these microstructures leads to an overall reduction in ice adhesion compared to the original smooth surface, particularly for the 1400#-SR sample? Could the authors elaborate on the interplay between potentially increased interlocking (Fb) and factors that might reduce adhesion, such as modified contact area (Fc) or altered interfacial fracture mechanics?   

5) Line 175-176: The manuscript notes that the prepared surfaces do not meet the strict criteria for superhydrophobicity, citing a maximum contact angle below 150° and high roll-off angles. In the context of developing practical anti-icing surfaces, what is the authors' perspective on the relative importance of achieving true superhydrophobicity versus attaining the significant, albeit anisotropic, reduction in ice adhesion strength demonstrated in this work?   

Author Response

1) Line 26-28 & Figure 5: The abstract states that smaller microstructure dimensions lead to increased surface roughness. However, the roughness data presented (Sa values in Figure 5) indicate that the 600#-SR sample (Sa=28.01 µm) possesses significantly higher roughness than the samples with smaller microstructures (1400#-SR Sa=14.29 µm; 2000#-SR Sa=15.19 µm). Could the authors clarify this apparent discrepancy between the abstract's assertion and the measured roughness values?  

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important issue. We acknowledge that the original expression was inaccurate. To resolve this discrepancy and better reflect our findings, we have revised the relevant sentence in the abstract. The revision is highlighted in red for your reference.

The original sentence:

"For structures of identical shapes, smaller dimensions result in increased surface roughness, yielding superior hydrophobicity and reduced ice adhesion strength."

has been revised to:

"For microstructures with identical shapes, variations in dimension affect both surface roughness and functional performance. Although the structure with the largest dimension (600#-SR) exhibits the highest surface roughness, smaller structures (e.g., 1400#-SR) demonstrate superior hydrophobicity and lower ice adhesion strength, likely due to enhanced air entrapment and reduced effective solid–liquid and solid–ice contact areas."

This revision more accurately describes the observed results and provides a reasonable explanation for why smaller structures (e.g., 1400#-SR), despite having lower roughness, show better hydrophobic and anti-icing performance. We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and helpful suggestion.

2) Line 205-207 & 212-216: The results demonstrate that the 1400#-SR sample exhibited the minimum ice adhesion strength in both X (38.6 kPa) and Y (63.3 kPa) directions, surpassing the performance of samples with both larger (600#) and smaller (2000#) microstructures. The discussion attributes the subsequent increase in adhesion for the 2000#-SR sample primarily to its slightly higher roughness compared to 1400#-SR. Is surface roughness considered the dominant factor explaining this non-linear trend, or might other geometric parameters specific to the 1400# microstructure contribute significantly to its optimal icephobic performance?   

Response: Thank you for raising this insightful question. Although surface roughness is an important factor influencing ice adhesion strength, it is not the only determining factor. The excellent icephobic performance of the 1400#-SR sample is not only due to its surface roughness but is also closely related to the geometric features of its microstructure. Specifically, the microstructure size of the 1400#-SR sample is optimal, providing enough surface roughness to hinder water droplet adhesion while avoiding the excessive surface roughness that could lead to a strong bond between the ice crystals and the microstructure (i.e., the ice-locking effect). The revision is highlighted in red.

When the microstructure size is optimal, water droplets are less likely to fully penetrate the microstructure during freezing, thus reducing the bonding force between the ice and the microstructure. This helps to decrease ice adhesion strength. Compared to the 600#-SR sample (which has higher roughness and larger microstructures) and the 2000#-SR sample (which has smaller microstructures and lower surface roughness), the microstructure size of the 1400#-SR sample achieves a balance between surface roughness and the interaction between the water droplets and the microstructure, providing the best icephobic performance.

Therefore, the superior icephobic performance of the 1400#-SR sample is the result of the combined effects of surface roughness and the geometric features of its microstructure, including its size, spacing, and arrangement.

3) Line 331-335: The proposed mechanism for anisotropic ice adhesion posits that the interlocking component (Fb) is negligible when force is applied perpendicular to the microstructure recesses (X-direction) but significant when parallel (Y-direction). Considering the description of the features as recessed rectangular shapes, are there quantifiable differences in the geometric profile presented to the ice in the X versus Y directions that would account for the varying magnitude of Fb, beyond simple alignment with the recess direction?   

Response: Thank you for raising this important point. The anisotropic behavior of ice adhesion observed in our study is indeed influenced by the geometric profile of the microstructures in the X and Y directions, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify this further. The revision is highlighted in red.

While the interlocking component (Fb) is expected to be negligible when force is applied perpendicular to the microstructure recesses (X-direction), it becomes significant when force is applied parallel to the recesses (Y-direction). This anisotropic behavior is not solely due to the alignment of the microstructures but also stems from quantifiable differences in the geometric profiles presented to the ice in each direction. In the X-direction, the microstructure recesses are oriented such that the ice crystal primarily interacts with the flat surfaces of the microstructures, minimizing the physical interlocking between the ice and the microstructure. As a result, Fb is relatively small in the X-direction. However, in the Y-direction, the recesses are aligned in such a way that they provide more direct engagement between the ice and the microstructure. The ice is able to penetrate more effectively into the recesses, increasing the surface area for ice interlocking. This leads to a more significant interlocking effect and a higher Fb in the Y-direction. 

Thus, the variation in Fb between the X and Y directions is not just a result of alignment but also due to the distinct geometric interactions between the ice and the microstructures in each direction, which can be quantified by considering factors such as the depth, spacing, and orientation of the microstructures relative to the applied force. These geometric factors contribute to the observed differences in ice adhesion strength along the two directions.

We hope this explanation clarifies the mechanism underlying the anisotropic ice adhesion observed in our study.

4) Line 297-307 & Overall Results: The mechanism analysis suggests that water penetration and subsequent freezing within microstructures create an interlocking effect that increases ice adhesion strength (Fb). How does this assertion reconcile with the principal finding that introducing these microstructures leads to an overall reduction in ice adhesion compared to the original smooth surface, particularly for the 1400#-SR sample? Could the authors elaborate on the interplay between potentially increased interlocking (Fb) and factors that might reduce adhesion, such as modified contact area (Fc) or altered interfacial fracture mechanics?   

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. The apparent contradiction between the interlocking effect (Fb), which increases ice adhesion strength, and the overall reduction in ice adhesion strength observed in the 1400#-SR sample, despite the introduction of microstructures, can be explained by considering the interplay between multiple factors. The revision is highlighted in red.

Interlocking Effect (Fb) and Water Penetration: As described in the article, when the microstructure size is reduced, the water penetrates the microstructures during the freezing process, causing ice crystals to conform to the microstructure. This leads to an interlocking effect between the ice and microstructures, which increases adhesion strength (Fb). This effect is more pronounced in the Y-direction where the microstructure recesses are aligned, enhancing the interlocking force. Modified Contact Area (Fc): While the interlocking effect (Fb) tends to increase ice adhesion strength, the reduced size of the microstructures in the 1400#-SR sample also contributes to a decrease in the actual contact area (Fc) between the water (or ice) and the surface. As the microstructure size decreases, the static contact angle increases, limiting the penetration of water into the microstructures. This reduces the real contact area between the ice and the composite surface, thereby decreasing Fc, which contributes to a reduction in ice adhesion strength. Balance of Factors (Fb and Fc): In the 1400#-SR sample, the reduction in the contact area (Fc) outweighs the increased interlocking effect (Fb). The surface roughness is optimally balanced at this size, meaning that while there is a slight increase in ice interlocking within the microstructure, the reduced contact area due to the increased static contact angle and surface characteristics leads to an overall reduction in ice adhesion. This explains why, despite the presence of microstructures, the ice adhesion strength is lower than expected based solely on the interlocking (Fb) effect. Comparison with Other Samples: For the 600#-SR and 2000#-SR samples, the microstructure sizes either result in larger contact areas or less optimal configurations for reducing ice adhesion, leading to higher overall ice adhesion strengths. These samples have either excessive roughness (600#-SR) or reduced interaction between the water and microstructures (2000#-SR), both of which result in higher ice adhesion strength compared to the 1400#-SR sample. 

In conclusion, while the interlocking effect (Fb) contributes to higher ice adhesion strength, factors such as the modified contact area (Fc) and altered surface roughness play a crucial role in determining the overall ice adhesion. For the 1400#-SR sample, the optimized microstructure size results in reduced contact area and a balance of surface features, leading to a lower overall ice adhesion strength despite the increased interlocking.

5) Line 175-176: The manuscript notes that the prepared surfaces do not meet the strict criteria for superhydrophobicity, citing a maximum contact angle below 150° and high roll-off angles. In the context of developing practical anti-icing surfaces, what is the authors' perspective on the relative importance of achieving true superhydrophobicity versus attaining the significant, albeit anisotropic, reduction in ice adhesion strength demonstrated in this work?   

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our perspective on the importance of superhydrophobicity versus anisotropic ice adhesion reduction in the context of developing practical anti-icing surfaces.it is important to recognize that true superhydrophobicity is not the only path to achieving effective ice adhesion reduction. The key factor in practical anti-icing applications is the ability to minimize ice adhesion strength in real-world conditions, where factors like anisotropy and microstructural design can play a critical role. The revision is highlighted in red.

In our study, we have demonstrated that microstructural modifications, even in the absence of true superhydrophobicity, can significantly reduce ice adhesion strength, particularly in the anisotropic 1400#-SR sample. The anisotropic surface features (i.e., different characteristics in the X and Y directions) contribute to a reduction in ice adhesion by disrupting the interlocking effect between ice and the microstructures, without needing to achieve a contact angle exceeding 150°. The observed reduction in ice adhesion strength, especially in the X direction, is due to a combination of factors such as modified surface roughness, reduced contact area, and surface wettability characteristics that enhance anti-icing performance.

In practical applications, surfaces that do not meet the strict definition of superhydrophobicity can still provide significant benefits in anti-icing performance, especially when anisotropic characteristics are optimized to reduce ice adhesion. In this regard, our work emphasizes the importance of microstructure design and wettability control in achieving effective icephobic performance, even if superhydrophobicity is not fully realized.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper has investigated “The Influence of Anisotropic Microstructures on Ice Adhesion Performance of Rubber Surfaces’’. This paper described detailed investigations. This can be an interesting and scientifically relevant to publish. However, one of the most important drawbacks concerns the originality of the paper. It is difficult to see what the significant difference is between this work and the literature. Of course, it is mentioned introduction part, but it is not clear enough. Can authors elaborate about the significant in their research as compared to the literature.
2. Lines 94-98, what was the roller gap of the mill at this stage?
3. SEM images, is there any differences between original rubber and composites at the cross-section surface?
4. Figure 3, authors presented the drop bigger for the lager contact angles. IS it from the experiment set up? Please double check.
5. The contact angles showed the best performed which highest contact angle for 2000#-SR sample, while ice adhesion reached minimum with 1400#-SR sample.
6. Lines 266 to 268, authors reported “The roughness for the 2000#-SR specimen is recorded as Sa = 15.19 µm, which represents an increase of 740.2% compared to the original silicone rubber”, however an increase in Sa indicates that surface is rougher.
7. Finally, please do a thorough editing effort in the English language and make sure that format, spaces and proper grammar rules are followed throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

1) The paper has investigated “The Influence of Anisotropic Microstructures on Ice Adhesion Performance of Rubber Surfaces”. This paper described detailed investigations. This can be an interesting and scientifically relevant to publish. However, one of the most important drawbacks concerns the originality of the paper. It is difficult to see what the significant difference is between this work and the literature. Of course, it is mentioned introduction part, but it is not clear enough. Can authors elaborate about the significant in their research as compared to the literature.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We understand the importance of clearly articulating the originality and significance of our work in the broader context of existing literature. In our study, we focused on the anisotropic ice adhesion behavior of microstructured silicone rubber (M-SR) surfaces. The revision is highlighted in red. While there have been studies on microstructural surfaces for ice adhesion, particularly those exploring superhydrophobicity and surface roughness, our work differentiates itself in the following key ways:

Anisotropic Design Focus: While many studies primarily focus on isotropic surface roughness and its effect on ice adhesion, our work specifically explores the anisotropic nature of microstructures. We investigated the directional differences in ice adhesion in both the X and Y directions, providing insights into how the alignment and arrangement of microstructures influence ice adhesion. This directional analysis is novel and opens up new possibilities for tailoring surfaces to achieve optimal anti-icing performance in specific applications.

Optimal Microstructure Size: Unlike studies that may focus on the effects of extreme roughness or specific microstructure patterns, we have identified an optimal microstructure size (in the 1400#-SR sample) that strikes a balance between roughness and contact area, leading to reduced ice adhesion strength. The interplay between microstructure size, surface roughness, and ice adhesion strength has not been thoroughly explored in previous literature. This balanced approach to surface engineering could offer more practical solutions for real-world anti-icing applications.

Comprehensive Mechanistic Analysis: Our work provides a more detailed mechanistic understanding of how surface roughness, contact area, and microstructure geometry interact to affect ice adhesion. We examine not just the roughness, but also the geometric features of microstructures and their impact on ice interlocking (Fb), contact area (Fc), and overall adhesion strength (Fa). This nuanced analysis of the multiple contributing factors to ice adhesion is more comprehensive than many previous studies, which tend to focus on just one aspect of surface design.

Practical Implications for Anti-Icing Surfaces: The results of our study offer significant practical implications for the design of anti-icing surfaces in environments where reducing ice adhesion is crucial. By optimizing microstructural features, we show that it is possible to achieve effective icephobicity even without meeting the strict criteria for superhydrophobicity, a characteristic that is often hard to achieve in real-world conditions.

In conclusion, the originality of our work lies in the exploration of anisotropic microstructure design for ice adhesion reduction, the identification of an optimal microstructure size for balanced icephobic performance, and the comprehensive mechanistic understanding of the interplay between surface features and ice adhesion. These contributions extend beyond the scope of current literature and provide new insights into surface engineering for anti-icing applications. We hope this clarification addresses your concern regarding the novelty of our research.

2) Lines 94-98, what was the roller gap of the mill at this stage?

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s questions. The roller gap of the mill was adjusted to 2 mm. This gap ensured that the silicone rubber sheet had a uniform thickness suitable for subsequent template pressing and microstructure formation.

3) SEM images, is there any differences between original rubber and composites at the cross-section surface?

Response: Thank you for your question. There are notable differences between the original silicone rubber and the M-SR composites at the cross-sectional surface, as observed through SEM imaging. The original silicone rubber exhibits a relatively smooth and homogeneous cross-section, indicative of its uniform internal structure without microstructural modifications. In contrast, the cross-section of the M-SR composites shows distinct surface topographies due to the imprinting of microstructures. Indented microcavities and ridges introduced by the mesh template, A gradient in surface morphology near the interface, reflecting the transferred pattern, Slightly increased surface roughness and heterogeneity at the outermost layer of the composites. These differences confirm the successful formation of microstructures on the surface of the composites, while the bulk material beneath remains consistent with the original silicone matrix.

4) Figure 3, authors presented the drop bigger for the lager contact angles. IS it from the experiment set up? Please double check.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We have verified the experimental setup and confirm that all contact angle measurements were performed using droplets of identical volume (5 μL). The apparent size difference of the droplets at higher contact angles in the figure is primarily due to camera angle and lens distortion, rather than variations in droplet volume. This visual effect does not affect the accuracy of the contact angle measurements, as all images were analyzed using standardized software.

5) The contact angles showed the best performed which highest contact angle for 2000#-SR sample, while ice adhesion reached minimum with 1400#-SR sample.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. This apparent inconsistency arises from the fact that ice adhesion is influenced not only by wettability (as indicated by contact angle) but also by the interplay of surface roughness and microstructure geometry. Specifically, although the 2000#-SR has better hydrophobicity, its relatively higher surface roughness compared to the 1400#-SR sample can lead to increased mechanical interlocking between the ice and surface microstructures, thereby increasing the ice adhesion strength. In contrast, the 1400#-SR sample achieves an optimal balance between roughness, wettability, and microstructure geometry, resulting in minimal actual contact area and reduced interlocking, and thus exhibits the best anti-icing performance overall.

6) Lines 266 to 268, authors reported “The roughness for the 2000#-SR specimen is recorded as Sa = 15.19 µm, which represents an increase of 740.2% compared to the original silicone rubber”, however an increase in Sa indicates that surface is rougher.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, an increase in Sa (arithmetical mean height) indicates that the surface has become rougher. Our original statement aimed to emphasize that, compared to the smooth surface of the original silicone rubber (Sa ≈ 1.81 µm), the 2000#-SR specimen exhibited a significantly rougher surface, with Sa increasing to 15.19 µm, which corresponds to an approximate 740.2% increase in roughness.We will revise the sentence in the manuscript for clarity. This revision ensures consistency between the measured values and their physical interpretation. The revision is highlighted in red.

7) Finally, please do a thorough editing effort in the English language and make sure that format, spaces and proper grammar rules are followed throughout the manuscript.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. We understand your concerns regarding the manuscript's presentation. We will conduct a thorough review to ensure that the language, grammar, and formatting meet the highest standards. Our goal is to enhance clarity and readability while adhering strictly to the journal's guidelines. These revisions will not only address the technical aspects but also improve the overall quality of the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail and are committed to ensuring the manuscript meets the required scholarly and editorial standards. The revision is highlighted in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting study on the fabrication of silicone-based hardened composites with anisotropic microstructures using a templating technique, and demonstrate how these structures can effectively reduce ice adhesion. While the results are well presented, the concept of tailoring surface roughness and morphology to prevent fluid or ice attachment is well-documented in the literature, as the authors themselves acknowledge.

Furthermore, the interpretations and discussions in the manuscript rely heavily on previously published findings, and the work does not appear to introduce any fundamentally new scientific insights or phenomena. The hydrophobic silicone rubber used in this study is a commercially available, widely used material, and thus lacks novelty in terms of material selection. It is well understood in the field that creating micron-scale surface textures on hydrophobic silicone rubber can lead to high water contact angles and reduced ice adhesion—an outcome that does not significantly exceed what could be expected from prior knowledge.

Overall, the manuscript reads more like a technical report rather than a scientific article that advances the field. I encourage the authors to more clearly highlight any truly novel contributions, both in methodology and in mechanistic insight, to justify the manuscript’s suitability for publication in a scientific journal.

Author Response

1) The authors present an interesting study on the fabrication of silicone-based hardened composites with anisotropic microstructures using a templating technique, and demonstrate how these structures can effectively reduce ice adhesion. While the results are well presented, the concept of tailoring surface roughness and morphology to prevent fluid or ice attachment is well-documented in the literature, as the authors themselves acknowledge.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. While the concept of tailoring surface roughness and morphology to prevent fluid or ice attachment has been well-documented in the literature, our study provides new insights by focusing on anisotropic microstructures. Specifically, we investigate the directional differences in ice adhesion strength resulting from microstructure alignment along the X and Y axes. This approach is distinct from previous studies, which primarily focus on isotropic or randomly arranged structures. Additionally, our study explores the combined effects of surface roughness, microstructure geometry, and wettability, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms behind ice adhesion reduction. These contributions extend the current knowledge in surface design for anti-icing applications and provide practical guidance for optimizing material properties in real-world conditions. The revision is highlighted in red.

2) Furthermore, the interpretations and discussions in the manuscript rely heavily on previously published findings, and the work does not appear to introduce any fundamentally new scientific insights or phenomena. The hydrophobic silicone rubber used in this study is a commercially available, widely used material, and thus lacks novelty in terms of material selection. It is well understood in the field that creating micron-scale surface textures on hydrophobic silicone rubber can lead to high water contact angles and reduced ice adhesion—an outcome that does not significantly exceed what could be expected from prior knowledge.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. Thought it is true that hydrophobic silicone rubber is a well-established material, our work introduces novel contributions in the context of anisotropic microstructure design for controlling ice adhesion. Specifically, the key scientific insight of this study lies in the directional anisotropy of microstructures and their impact on ice adhesion strength, which has not been fully explored in the context of silicone rubber composites. Previous studies have primarily focused on isotropic or random surface textures, and while they have demonstrated reduced ice adhesion, they have not comprehensively addressed how anisotropic microstructure alignment influences the directional ice adhesion performance. This directional difference, as observed in the X and Y axes of our microstructures, represents an important step toward more precise control of ice adhesion based on surface morphology, an aspect that is not fully covered in existing literature. The revision is highlighted in red.

Furthermore, while creating micron-scale surface textures on hydrophobic materials is indeed a known strategy, our work quantifies and analyzes the interaction between surface roughness, microstructure size, and wettability, providing a deeper understanding of their combined influence on ice adhesion strength. We believe this offers a more refined approach compared to prior studies and opens up new avenues for the design of anti-icing materials, especially in applications requiring anisotropic properties. Therefore, the novelty of our work lies in its integrated approach to understanding and optimizing surface morphology for effective anti-icing performance.

3) Overall, the manuscript reads more like a technical report rather than a scientific article that advances the field. I encourage the authors to more clearly highlight any truly novel contributions, both in methodology and in mechanistic insight, to justify the manuscript’s suitability for publication in a scientific journal.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. Anisotropic Microstructure Design: Unlike previous studies focused on isotropic textures, our work investigates how the alignment and geometry of microstructures in specific directions (X and Y) lead to directional differences in ice adhesion. This insight opens up new possibilities for designing surfaces with optimized anti-icing properties tailored to specific applications. Mechanistic Insights: We provide novel insights into the mechanisms of ice adhesion, showing how microstructure geometry, wettability, and surface roughness interact to influence ice adhesion. The anisotropic effects we observe, particularly the directional interlocking of ice with microstructures, have not been fully explored in previous studies and represent a deeper understanding of the forces at play. Integrated Approach: By combining microstructure morphology, wettability, and roughness analysis, our study offers a more comprehensive framework for understanding ice adhesion, offering novel perspectives on how these factors synergistically influence the performance of anti-icing surfaces.

In conclusion, our study goes beyond simple surface roughness optimization by exploring directional effects and mechanistic insights, providing a more sophisticated and integrated understanding of ice adhesion. We believe these novel contributions justify the manuscript’s scientific merit and its suitability for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has adequately addressed the concerns raised during the review process by providing clear responses and appropriate solutions. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, with relevant modifications and additional sentences incorporated in the main text. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript for publication.