Noise Was Obviously Reduced by Both Leaf Texture and Surface Roughness in Leaf Scale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

This ms tested a noise reduction of trees and shrubs in a designed-chamber experiments. It looks good and provides a fundamental information on noise control by plants in a city.

 

Comment 1

L 301~305, What is a precision and measuring range of device? Please clarify the device description.

Question 2

Based on your data, coriaceous leaf could be an effect at the noise reduction. But, in the field application, macro-scale factors such as leaf arrangement, vacant space of twig and branches could affect the pathway of sound waves. The traits of micro-scale factors of leaf surface roughness and texture could provide a fundamental information to decrease a noise in a city. In the application of your results to a city, what is the priority things to conduct research? In a conclusion parts, could you add a outreach of your findings for future study?

### Detail comments ###

Usually, many papers follow the order of introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusions, but do you have any intention to use a typical way?

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We sincerely thank for the constructive comments concerning our manuscript (plants-3540799). These comments are valuable and very helpful for improving our manuscript. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript. The reviewer's comments are laid out below in black and have been numbered. Our point-by-point responses are given in blue and changes/additions to the manuscript are highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in the Word documents.

Comment 1

L 301~305, What is a precision and measuring range of device? Please clarify the device description.

Response 1

Thank you for highlighting the need for precise instrumentation details. We have supplemented the device specifications in Section 4.4, with key additions summarized below:

Table 1 Measurement Parameters of the sound pressure level meter

Device	Range	Measurement Protocol	Measurement Uncertainty	Location (Track/Clean)
AWA6228+ Sound Pressure Level Meter	f: 10Hz-20kHz LP: 20dB-145dB	GB/T3785.1-2010 IEC61672-1:2013	0.4dB-1.0dB	Page4, Lines 159-161➔ Page 4, Lines 159-161

Question 2

Based on your data, coriaceous leaf could be an effect at the noise reduction. But, in the field application, macro-scale factors such as leaf arrangement, vacant space of twig and branches could affect the pathway of sound waves. The traits of micro-scale factors of leaf surface roughness and texture could provide a fundamental information to decrease a noise in a city. In the application of your results to a city, what is the priority things to conduct research? In a conclusion parts, could you add a outreach of your findings for future study?

Response 2

Thank you for highlighting the importance of bridging micro-scale traits and macro-scale design in urban noise mitigation. As suggested, we have expanded the Conclusion section to explicitly address this interplay (Pages 14-15, Lines 504–514 of track changes version of the manuscript)

(Page 14-15, Lines 476-483 of clean version).

Key additions include:

1.Trait-based selection:

Leaf surface roughness (LSR) and coriaceous texture (LT) are now emphasized as critical morphological filters for identifying noise-attenuating species.

2.Multi-scale integration:

We explicitly acknowledge that canopy stratification and branch porosity modulate sound scattering efficiency, requiring synergistic design beyond species selection alone.

3.Future Research Directions

3.1 Prioritize species with higher LSR and LT in high-noise zones

3.2 Coupling trait-based selection with multi-layered designs

We think that future studies should investigate the structural synergies between forest architecture, canopy morphology, and leaf trait diversity (e.g., coriaceous vs. chartaceous leaves), extending the individual-scale findings of this work to community configurations. Specifically, quantifying how micro-scale leaf adaptations (e.g., trichome density, cuticle thickness) scale up to influence macro-scale acoustic performance in heterogeneous canopies could optimize noise-attenuating forest design.

 

Comment 3

Detail comments

Usually, many papers follow the order of introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusions, but do you have any intention to use a typical way?

 

Response 3

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding the structure of our manuscript. We fully recognize the value of the traditional IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) in organizing scientific narratives. The manuscript now strictly adheres to the IMRaD structure prescribed in the journal guidelines.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of the paper is interesting, the research shown in the manuscript sheds light on the relationship between leaf morphological traits and noise reduction. The paper is of good quality. The methodology is appropriate. The results are presented in adequate figures and tables, and analysed using appropriate statistical methods. The Discussion is concise and highlights the key finding. The manuscript is appropriate to be published in 'Plants' but there are numerous minor points which should be improved. I have listed them in a separate file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please review the text carefully, I have shown some week points in the attached file.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We sincerely thank for the constructive comments concerning our manuscript (plants-3540799). These comments are valuable and very helpful for improving our manuscript. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript. The reviewer's comments are laid out below in black and have been numbered. Our point-by-point responses are given in blue and changes/additions to the manuscript are highlighted using the "Track Changes" function in the Word documents.

Comment 1

Line 39, Keywords: “leaf texture” and “leaf surface roughness” are used in the title, so there

is no need to repeat them in the Keywords.

Response 1

Thank you for pointing this out. Following your suggestion, we have removed the keywords “leaf texture” and “leaf surface roughness” to avoid redundancy with the title.

This change has been made on Page 1, Lines 39–40 of the track-changes version of the manuscript.
In the clean version, the revision can be found on Page 1 Line39.

Comment 2

Line 96, Introduction: irrespective of the list of abbreviations added at the end of the main

text, I suggest to explain all abbreviations, when used for the first time, here: “LT”.

Response 2

Thank you for highlighting this issue. According to your suggestion, we have carefully revised the manuscript to define all abbreviations upon their first use throughout the text. These changes are explicitly marked in both versions of the revised manuscript: For a comprehensive overview, all abbreviation expansions and their locations are summarized in Table 1 (attached below).  

Table 1 Summary of Revisions: Descriptions and Version-Specific Locations for Response 2/3

Abbreviation	Full Definition	Track-Changes Version Location	Clean Version Location
LT	leaf texture	Page 3, Line 96	Page 3, Line 96
LSR	leaf surface roughness	Page 3, Line 104	Page 3, Line 104
RNR	relative noise reduction	Page 8, Line 261	Page 8, Line 262
CL	coriaceous leaf	Page 8, Line 280	Page 8, Line 281
CHL	chartaceous leaf	Page 8, Line 281	Page 8, Line 282
LSRD	leaf surface with roughness on double epidermis	Page 8, Line 284	Page 8, Line 285
LSSD	leaf surface with smooth on double epidermis	Page 8, Line 285	Page 8, Line 286
LSRS	leaves of leaf surface with roughness on single epidermis	Page 8, Line 286	Page 8, Line 287
LTD	leaf tissue density	Page 7, Line 247	Page 7, Line 249
LMA	leaf dry mass per area	Page 7, Line 239	Page 7, Line 241
SRBE	surface roughness on abaxial epidermis of lamina	Page 6, Line 212	Page 6, Line 212
SRDE	surface roughness on adaxial epidermis of lamina	Page 6, Line 212	Page 6, Line 211
CLSSD	coriaceous leaf with smooth on double epidermis	Figure 8 caption, Page 6, Line 372	Figure 8 caption, Page 11, Line 369
CLSRS	coriaceous leaf with roughness on single epidermis	Figure 8 caption, Page 6, Line 373	Figure 8 caption, Page 11, Line 370
CLSRD	coriaceous leaf with roughness on double epidermis	Figure 8 caption, Page 6, Line 374	Figure 8 caption, Page 11, Line 371
CHLSSD	chartaceous leaf with smooth on double epidermis	Figure 8 caption, Page 6, Line 374	Figure 8 caption, Page 11, Line 371
CHLSRS	chartaceous leaf with roughness on single epidermis	Figure 8 caption, Page 6, Line 375	Figure 8 caption, Page 11, Line 372
CHLSRD	chartaceous leaf with roughness on double epidermis	Figure 8 caption, Page 6, Line 376	Figure 8 caption, Page 11, Line 373
SA	sound level meter A	Page 4, Line 143	Page 4, Line 143
SB	sound level meter B	Page 4, Line 144	Page 4, Line 144
PA	area of lamina surface protrusion	Page 7, Line 217	Page 7, Line 219
HA	area of hair patches	Page 7, Line 217	Page 7, Line 219
VA	area of leaf vein	Page 7, Line 218	Page 7, Line 220
LA	leaf area	Page 7, Line 218	Page 7, Line 220
BE	abaxial epidermis	Page 7, Line 219	Page 7, Line 221
DE	adaxial epidermis	Page 7, Line 220	Page 7, Line 223
SHA	the area of the leaf surface where the hairs are located	Page 7, Line 229	Page 7, Line 231
PABE	Protrusion area on abaxial epidermis	Page 7, Line 219	Page 7, Line 221
HABE	Hair area on abaxial epidermis	Page 7, Line 219	Page 7, Line 221
VABE	Vein area on abaxial epidermis	Page 7, Line 220	Page 7, Line 222
PADE	Protrusion area on adaxial epidermis	Page 7, Line 221	Page 7, Line 223
HADE	Hair area on adaxial epidermis	Page 7, Line 221	Page 7, Line 223
VADE	Vein area on adaxial epidermis	Page 7, Line 222	Page 7, Line 224
LHP	leaf hair proportion	Page 7, Line 231	Page 7, Line 233
SPLA	sound pressure level A	Page 7, Line 252	Page 7, Line 253
SPLB	sound pressure level B	Page 7, Line 253	Page 7, Line 254
SPLA0	sound pressure level A0	Page 8, Line 257	Page 8, Line 258
SPLB0	sound pressure level B0	Page 8, Line 258	Page 8, Line 259

Comment 3

Lines 100, 104 and the next ones, Results:  please explain the abbreviations: LSR, RNR,

LSRD etc. when used in the main text for the first time

Response 3

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have systematically revised the manuscript to ensure all abbreviations are explicitly defined upon their first occurrence in the main text. The Abbreviations and their full definition have been listed in Table 1.

Comment 4

Figure 1, 2, 3, 5: units should be inserted in parentheses, i.e. Y-axis: RNR (dB).

Response 4

Thank you for your feedback. We have inserted units in parentheses for all Y-axis labels in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5 as requested. The modifications are detailed below with cross-referenced locations.

Table 2 Summary of Revisions of axis labels

Original Figure Number	New Figure Number	Revision Description	Track-Changes Version Location	Clean Version Location
1	3	Y-axis label updated to "RNR (dB)"	Page 9, Lines 309	Page 9, Line 310
2	6	Y-axis label updated to "RNR (dB)"	Page 11, Lines 349	Page 10, Line 348
3	7	Y-axis label revised to " RNR (dB)"	Page 11, Lines 363-369	Page 11, Lines 361-362
5	5	Y-axis label revised to " RNR (dB)"	Page 10, Lines 322-323	Page 9, Line 322-323
6	8	Y-axis label revised to " Leaf Surface roughness (%)" X-axis label “RLS” revised to “LSR”	Page 12, Lines 370-371	Page 11, Lines 368

Comment 5

Lines 112-115, Figure 1 caption: where is RRNR in the graph? Please explain RLS

abbreviation.

Response 5

We appreciate your careful review. The following corrections have been implemented:

Table 3 Summary of Revisions: Descriptions and Version-Specific Locations for Response 5

	Revision Description	Track-Changes Version Location	Clean Version Location
1	Removal of Unreferenced Term "RRNR"	Page 9, Line 311 (Figure 3 caption)	Page 9, Line 311 (Figure 3 caption)
2	Correction of "RLS" to "LSR"	Page 12, Line 371 (Figure 8 caption)	Page 11, Lines 368 (Figure 8 caption)
3	Definition Added Leaf Surface Roughness (LSR)	Page 6, Line 377 (Figure 8 caption)	Page 11, Line 374 (Figure 8 caption)

Comment 6

Lines 125-126, Figure 2 caption: please explain all abbreviations (CL, CHL, etc.) in the

graphs.  m

Response 6

We would like to thank you for the positive and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have carefully modified the relevant content. The specific replies to the comments are as follows:

Table 4 Explainations on all abbreviations

Original Figure Number	New Figure Number	Revision Description	Track-Changes Version locations	Clean Version Location
2	6	Define all Abbreviations in the caption	Page 11 Lines 349-353	Page 10, Lines 348-352
3	7	Define all Abbreviations in the caption	Page 11, Lines 366-370	Page 11, Lines 362-367
4	4	Define all Abbreviations in the caption	Page 9, Lines 317-321	Page 9, Lines 318-322
5	5	Define all Abbreviations in the caption	Page 10, Lines323-331	Page 10, Lines 324-331
6	8	Define all Abbreviations in the caption	Page 12, Lines 371- 378	Page 11, Lines 368-375

Comment 7

Figure 4: please explain or correct Y-axis caption: Ln-Leaf tissue density. What is “Ln”?

Response 7

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review. We have thoroughly revised the figure captions and axis labels to ensure clarity and accuracy. The specific modifications are as follows:

1. Figure 4: Correction of "Ln-Leaf tissue density"

Y-axis label updated: "Leaf tissue density(g·cm^-3) "，the caption was amended Caption has been modified and an explanation has been added, stating that the y-axis data is the natural logarithm of leaf tissue density(Page 9, Lines 317-321 of the track-changes version of the manuscript)( Page 9, Lines 318-322 of the clean version of the manuscript).

2. Figure 6: Correction of "Ln- Leaf surface roughness "

Y-axis label updated: " Leaf surface roughness(%) "，the caption was amended Caption has been modified and an explanation has been added, stating that the y-axis data is the natural logarithm of leaf surface roughness (Page 12, Lines 371- 378 of the track-changes version of the manuscript).(Page 11, Lines 368-375 of the clean version of the manuscript).

Comment 8

Figures 4, 5, 6 and Table 2 should be described and included in the Results. Then, in

Discussion they can be commented.

Response 8

We think this is a very insightful comment that will help advance future research and improve the quality of the paper. We have restructured the manuscript to systematically integrate Figures 4–6 and Table 2 into the Results section and expanded their discussion as recommended. The key modifications are outlined below:

Table 5 Summary of Revisions: Descriptions and Version-Specific Locations for response8

Original Figure Number	New Figure Number	Description in Results	Track-Changes Version Location	Clean Version Location
Figure4	Figure4	Meanwhile, the average LTD values of CL leaves were significantly higher than those of CHL leaves, with increases of 9.13%, 23.96%, and 25.04% under the LSSD, LSRS, and LSRD surface roughness conditions, respectively (Figure 4).	Page8, Lines 291-293	Page8, Lines 293-295
Figure5	Figure5	Statistical analysis of the scatter plot demonstrated a significant positive correlation between leaf tissue density (LTD) and RNR (p < 0.05), suggesting that denser leaf tissues may contribute to improved acoustic attenuation performance (Figure 5).	Page8, Lines 287-289	Page8, Lines 289-291
Figure6	Figure8	Notably, for both CL and CHL leaves, LSR maintained a consistent quantitative relationship across different treatment levels, with the pattern LSSD < LSRS < LSRD (Figure 8).	Page8, Lines 299-301	Page8, Lines 301-303
Table2	Table3	The results of Pearson correlation analysis further indicated a highly significant positive correlation between LTD and RNR (Table 3).	Page8, Lines 289-291	Page8, Lines 291-293
Table2	Table3	Moreover, the correlation coefficient and statistical significance between RNR and CL were notably higher than those between RNR and CHL (Table 3).	Page8, Lines 294-295	Page8, Lines 296-298
Table2	Table3	Pearson correlation analysis further supported this pattern, showing that the correlation coefficient between LSR and RNR was highest in LSRD, followed by LSRS, and lowest in LSSD (Table 3).	Page8, Lines 303-305	Page8, Lines 305-308

Comment 9

Lines 187-188, Discussion: please explain the abbreviations: SRBE, SRDE (when used for

the first time) and include them in the list of abbreviations. These parameters should be also

explained in M&M – how they were obtained/calculated.

Response 9

We are very grateful for your valuable suggestions and We have addressed the definitions, abbreviations list updates, and methodological explanations as follows:

Table 6 Summary of Revisions: Descriptions and Version-Specific Locations

Abbreviation	Full Definition	Track-Changes Version Location	Clean Version Location
SRBE	surface roughness on abaxial epidermis of lamina	Page 6, Line 211-212	Page 6, Line 211
SRDE	surface roughness on adaxial epidermis of lamina	Page 6, Line 212	Page 6, Line 212

 

Table 7 Summary of Revisions: Descriptions and Version-Specific Locations

Version	Location	Highlight
Track-changes	Page 17, Abbreviation List	Highlighted with Yellow "SRBE/SRDE"
Clean	Page 14, Abbreviation List	Abbreviations List

 

 Parameter Calculation in Methods

SRBE(%)=(PA_BE+HA_BE+VA_BE)/LA×100%(2)                                                                                                                           

SRDE(%)=(PA_DE+HA_DE+VA_DE)/LA×100%(3)

Location:

Track-changes version: Page 6-7, Lines 215-218. (highlighted in yellow).

Clean version: Page 7, Lines215-218

Comment 10

Table 2: which column (line?) shows RNR?

Response 10

Thank you for your reminder! We think this is a very professional and important comment which made us realize that the original manuscript's description of Table 2 was unclear and could potentially mislead readers. Following your suggestion, we have added the following clarification to the caption of Table 3: " The data in each cell of the table represented the Pearson correlation coefficient between the structural indicators of and the RNR”

These changes can be found on Page 10，Lines 338-339 of the Track-changes version

These changes can be found on Page 10，Lines 338-339 of the clean version.

Comment 11

Line 206-206, Discussion: “because the coefficient…” this sentence is unclear.

Response 11

Thank you for highlighting the ambiguity. We have revised the manuscript to meet the request.

Original Sentence (Line 206):

"…because the coefficient between RNR and LSR on abaxial epidermis for all of data was higher than the coefficient between RNR and LSR on adaxial epidermis (Table 2). "

Revised Sentence:

"In general, leaves with LSR on the abaxial epidermis exhibited stronger noise reduction than those with LSR on the adaxial side, as indicated by the higher correlation coefficient between RNR and LSR on the abaxial surface in the complete dataset (Table 3)."

This change can be found on Page14, Lines 443-446 of the track-changes version of the manuscript.  

In the clean version, this change can be found on Page 12, Lines 428-430

Comment 12

What column in Table 2 shows RNR and LSR on abaxial epidermis or LSR on adaxial epidermis?

Response 12

Thank you for your reminder, which made us realize that the original manuscript's description of Table 2 was unclear and could potentially mislead readers. Following your suggestion, we have added the following clarification to the caption of Table 3: " The data in each cell of the table represented the Pearson correlation coefficient between the structural indicators of and the RNR.”

We have standardized the terminology usage. The data in the line labeled '(Surface roughness on abaxial epidermis of lamina) SRBE' represents the correlation coefficient between SRBE and RNR for different types of leaves. The data in the line labeled 'Surface roughness on adaxial epidermis of lamina (SRDE)' represents the correlation coefficient between SRDE and RNR for different types of leaves.

These changes can be found on Page 10，Lines 338-339 of the Track-changes version

These changes can be found on Page 10，Lines 338-339 of the clean version.

Comment 13

Main text: English language requires precise review: lines 59 (“numerical”?), 117, 128, 183,

254, 276, 410; a coma is necessary in the line 157 between “LT” and “that LTD”.

Response 13

We would like to thank you for the positive and valuable comments. We think this is a very professional and important comment. The specific replies to the comments are as follows:

Table 8 Summary of Response 13 on Revisions: Descriptions and Version-Specific Locations

Original Line Number	Issue	Revised Text	Track-Changes Version Location	Clean Version Location
59	Numerical papers of the effects of forest on noise reduction have been published.	Numerical studies on effects of forests on noise reduction have been published	Page 1, Line 59	Page1, Line 59
117	When we compared RNR with different frequencies between CL an CHL, we can pound that RNR were remarkably reduced by CL comparing with CHL when the wave band was lower than 12 kHz (Figure 2A)	When comparing RNR across different frequencies between CL and CHL, we found that RNR was remarkably reduced by CL comparing with CHL when the waveband was below 12 kHz (Figure 6A). Furthermore, the results remained consistent with LSRD within the same frequency range (Figure 6B).	Page10, Lines 340-344	Page10, Lines 360-362
128	LSR plaid a great role in the noise reduction function of LT (Figure 3) though the interaction between LT and LSR was not much higher (Table 1).	LSR played a significant role in LT-mediated noise attenuation (Figure 7), though the level of interaction between them was relatively limited (Table 2).	Page11, Lines 355-356	Page11, Lines 354-355
157	LTD was significantly influenced by LT that LTD of CL was significantly higher than that of CHL regardless of the type of LSR (Figure 4).	LTD was significantly influenced by LT, that LTD of CL was significantly higher than that of CHL regardless of the type of LSR (Figure 4).	Page12, Lines 393-395	Page 12, Lines 390-392
183	It was reported in recent studies that thickness and density of natural fiber was the important factors to sound absorption [47], thus dense bristle on leaf surface should be efficient to noise reduction.	Recent studies have reported that thickness and density of natural fiber are the important factors in sound absorption, thus dense bristle on leaf surface should be efficient to noise reduction.	Page13, Lines 420-423	Page 12, Lines 410-412
254	The locations of sampled trees were far from large squire, main roads and water body.	The locations of sampled trees were far from large squares, main roads and water bodies.	Page3, Lines 109-110	Page3, Lines 109-110
276	Therefor the indoor experiments were conducted using a self-designed device to avoid the interference from outdoor environmental noise.	Therefore, a custom-built device was employed in indoor experiments to avoid interference from outdoor noise.	Page4, Lines 131-132	Page4, Lines 131-132
410	Noise reduction ability of woody plant is significantly affected by leaf texture, leaf surface roughness and their interaction.	Noise attenuation performance of woody plant leaves is significantly influenced by leaf texture, leaf surface roughness and the interaction between these two factors.	Page15, Lines 485-487	Page13, Lines 460-470

Comment 14

Lines 419-420: unnecessary.

Response 14

Thank you for highlighting the ambiguity. This removal was explicitly shown as a strikethrough deletion on Page 15, Lines 504-505 in the track-changes version. In the clean version, these lines have been omitted entirely (Page 14, Lines 483-484).

Comment 15

Abbreviations: why “LSR” in italics? Several abbreviations are lacking: SPLA, SPLA0, SPLB,

SPLB0, SBA, SRBE, SRDE, RLS.

Response 15

We think this is a very professional and important comment. The italicized abbreviation "LSR" in the list of abbreviations has been corrected to standard (non-italic) formatting.     The italic formatting of LSR in the abbreviation list has been corrected to standard non-italic style. This entry is located on Page 16 of the track-changes version of the manuscript，highlighted with yellow.   

Table 9 Summary of Lacking abbreviations for Response 15

Lacking abbreviations	Full Definition	Track-Changes  Version Location	Clean Version Location
SPLA	sound pressure level A	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
SPLA0	sound pressure level A0	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
SPLB	sound pressure level B	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
SPLB0	sound pressure level B0	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
SHA	the area of the leaf surface where the hairs are located	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
SRBE	surface roughness on abaxial epidermis	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
SRDE	surface roughness on abaxial epidermis	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
CLSSD	coriaceous leaf with smooth on double epidermis	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
CLSRS	coriaceous leaf with roughness on single epidermis	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
CLSRD	coriaceous leaf with roughness on double epidermis	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
CHLSSD	chartaceous leaf with smooth on double epidermis	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
CHLSRS	chartaceous leaf with roughness on single epidermis	Page 16-17	Page 14-15
CHLSRD	chartaceous leaf with roughness on double epidermis	Page 16-17	Page 14-15

 

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review. The following abbreviation inconsistencies have been thoroughly corrected in both the main text and the abbreviations list:

Table 10 Summary of correction of abbreviations

Original Incorrect Term	Revised Term	Full Definition	Track-Changes  Location	Clean Version Location
SBA	SHA	the area of the leaf surface where the hairs are located	Page 7, Line 229	Page 7, Line 231
HV	PA	Protrusion area	Page7, Line 217	Page7, Line 219
BA	HA	Hair area	Page7, Line 217	Page7, Line 219
RLS	LSR	Leaf surface roughness	Page 12, Line 377 (Figure 8 caption)	Page 11, Lines 368 (Figure 8 caption)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf