Monitoring Coptic Masonry Affected by Clay Minerals and Microorganisms at the Church of Virgin Mary, Wadi El-Natrun (Egypt)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article has value as it provides original results for the clay minerals and microorganisms in the deterioration process of Coptic architecture units at the church of Virgin Mary, Wadi El-Natrun in Egypt 1^st c AD. It gives some considerable understanding of the microscopic mechanisms of deterioration of this important architectural heritage monument. Inspite the few samples they have been analysed in depth and with multiscientific techniques which warrants the value of the results.

However several points must be corrected:

1. In the affiliations the authorts should put them in 1, 2 two different Institutions or one. This is not at all clear. The affiliation has nothing to do with the emails. Must be cleared.

For example is it:  Department of Conservation, Faculty of Archaeology, Cairo University, 12611 Orman, Giza, Egypt?

2. In introduction at the end specify more clear what is the aim in this article the goals and novelty, in a few lines. Also how many samples and what type of samples were measured? Plasters 1, 2, 3? Mortars 1, 2, 3? Give photos.

3. In all ages quoted always write AD first and then AH. The expression: It was established in the first half of the (1st H./7th G.) century…must be corrected avoid H, G and use only AD or AH. For example 1^st c AD/ 7^th c AH)

4. In all figures quote original source except if this is of present authors.

5. Add a figure showing the locations/point of sampling and also figure of samples material analysed.

6. Avoid or rephrase the “….understanding of the kinetics and microscopic mechanisms…” because you never discuss the kinetics in the text. Whatever is the aim you must explain in discussion this aim.

7. In 2.Materials and Methods, separate thse into 3.1 Materials and 3.2 Methods.

8. References in the text must only include [number] not and the name of authors.

9. “…A mortar sample from the western wall inside the church…”. Only once you mention the location no many times same words about location. Why you studied only 2 samples and deduce conclusions from only 2? Any explanation?

10. Figs 8-10 add scale please.

11. In conclusion after finding these results what is the importance for conservation work? What is the value of these findings? Please explain.

12. Some recent references related to the work must be included:

Theologitis , C. Kapridaki, N. Kallithrakas-Kontos , P. Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki and A. Fotiou (2021) Mortar and plaster analysis as a directive to the design of compatible restoration materials in frangokastello (crete). Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 21, No 1, pp. 109-120 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4284427

Rocío Da Riva, Francisco Javier Santos Arévalo , and Marisol Madrid i Fernández (2021) The mortars from rock-cut hydraulic structures of as-sila (sela) in southern jordan: mineralogical characterization and radiocarbon dating. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry Vol. 21, No 2, pp. 37-67 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4643739

Rezida Khramchenkova, Ilvina Biktagirova, Bulat Gareev, Polina Kaplan (2018) HORSE-HEADED SAINT CHRISTOPHER FRESCO IN THE SVIYAZHSK ASSUMPTION CATHEDRAL (16th -17th CENTURY, RUSSIA): HISTORY AND ARCHAEOMETRY. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 18, No 3,  pp. 195-207. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo. 1476971 

Abdullah M.A. Kamel (2019) DEHYDRATION OF GYPSUM COMPONENT OF PLASTERS AND STUCCOS IN SOME EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL BUILDINGS AND EVALUATION OF K2SO4 ACTIVATOR AS A CONSOLIDANT. SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 49-59 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2649508

Kholod K.Salama, Mona F.Ali, Abubakr M.Moussa (2017) THE PRESENCE OF CEMENT MORTARS IN THE ADDED CHAMBERS OF EL SAKAKENY PALACE: A CASE STUDY. SCIENTIFIC CULTURE, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 25-29 Open Access. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.813134

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like first to thank the reviewer for his/her very important, useful and constructive comments.

Point 1: In the affiliations the authors should put them in 1, 2 two different Institutions or one. This is not at all clear. The affiliation has nothing to do with the emails. Must be cleared.

Response 1: The affiliation was modified according to the reviewer's observation; the authors belong to the same faculty but in two different departments.  

Point 2: In introduction at the end specify more clear what is the aim in this article the goals and novelty, in a few lines. Also how many samples and what type of samples were measured? Plasters 1, 2, 3? Mortars 1, 2, 3? Give photos.

Response 2: The aim of the study was added.

Point 3: In all ages quoted always write AD first and then AH. The expression: It was established in the first half of the (1st H./7th G.) century…must be corrected avoid H, G and use only AD or AH. For example 1st c AD/ 7th c AH)

Response 3: Modifications were done according to the reviewer's observation.

Point 4: In all figures quote original source except if this is of present authors.  

Response 4: First author has the copy rights of all the inserted figures.

Point 5: Add a figure showing the locations/point of sampling and also figure of samples material analysed.

Response 5: For such details the reviewer can kindly see " Moussa, A., Kantiranis, N., Voudouris, K., Stratis, J., Ali, M., and Christaras, B., Diagnosis of Weathered Coptic Wall Paintings in the Wadi El Natrun Region, Egypt, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10 (3), 2009, pp. 152-157.

Point 6: Avoid or rephrase the “….understanding of the kinetics and microscopic mechanisms…” because you never discuss the kinetics in the text. Whatever is the aim you must explain in discussion this aim.

Response 6: sentence was rephrased.

Point 7: In 2.Materials and Methods, separate these into 3.1 Materials and 3.2 Methods.

Response 7: The paper will lose its correlation.

Point 8: References in the text must only include [number] not and the name of authors.

Response 8: in some cases I'm obligated to mention the name of the author.

Point 9: “…A mortar sample from the western wall inside the church…”. Only once you mention the location no many times same words about location. Why you studied only 2 samples and deduce conclusions from only 2? Any explanation?

Response 9: Because of rarity; getting samples from Coptic wall paintings is very difficult, especially in such case while the church is inhibited and already in use.

Point 10: Figs 8-10 add scale please.

Response 10: Magnification power was added.

Point 11: In conclusion after finding these results what is the importance for conservation work? What is the value of these findings? Please explain.

Response 11: Done.

Point 12: Some recent references related to the work must be included:

Response 12: Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript aims to identify the presence of certain parameters (clay minerals, microorganisms) that can affect the deterioration of building materials from the Church of Virgin Mary in Egypt. There are a number of significant issues with the present form of the paper, the most important of which are described in detail below.

1. Introduction: The monument is described in a complete and detailed way. However, the information on the effect of clay minerals and microorganisms on building material is barely discussed. A more thorough discussion should be added, along with more related references.
2. Materials and methods: In this section there is no information provided on the analysed samples. How many mortar samples were examined, where were they taken from, how were they extracted, what preparation method was applied, were the cross sections or top surfaces examined, etc. For the mortar, was there only one type of mortar in the church? For the plaster, it is mentioned that there were 5 layers; is the sample analysed indicative of all layers?
3. Results: It is not clear if the mortar samples provided come from one or multiple samples.

Regarding the analytical data provided, I am not sure that the use of μ-XRF and SEM/EDS was necessary or even useful. It appears that the mineralogical composition provided by the XRD was enough to identify certain phases of interest. What additional information was provided by the major, minor and trace elemental composition?

4. Clay mineralogy: What is the significance of the presence of halloysite in the mortar samples? How are these clay minerals affecting the studied building material?
5. Biological study: As before, what is the significance of the presence of the various types of fungi identified? How do they affect the studied material? Also, no information is given on the wall paintings of the church, although it appears that that the composition of the pigments affects greatly the types and degree of biodeterioration.
6. Discussion: The information offered on this section is a bibliographical summary, therefore it is more suitable for the Introduction. There is in fact no discussion on the results of the present study and their significance.
7. Conclusions: Again, only a summary of the observations made through this study is presented, without any actual conclusion. In Line 243 is mentioned that “a certain role is played by the clay minerals and microorganisms in the deterioration process”; what is this role? How is the monument affected?
8. It would be useful if the manuscript was edited by a native English speaker. Check especially the use of semicolons and parentheses, which in many cases does not make sense.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We would like first to thank the reviewer for his/her very important, useful and constructive comments.

Point 1: Introduction: The monument is described in a complete and detailed way. However, the information on the effect of clay minerals and microorganisms on building material is barely discussed. A more thorough discussion should be added, along with more related references.

Response 1: More details were added according to the reviewer's observation.  

Point 2: Materials and methods: In this section there is no information provided on the analysed samples. How many mortar samples were examined, where were they taken from, how were they extracted, what preparation method was applied, were the cross sections or top surfaces examined, etc. For the mortar, was there only one type of mortar in the church? For the plaster, it is mentioned that there were 5 layers; is the sample analysed indicative of all layers?

Response 2: Because of rarity; getting samples from Coptic wall paintings is very difficult, especially in such case while the church is inhibited and already in use. For such details the reviewer can kindly see " Moussa, A., Kantiranis, N., Voudouris, K., Stratis, J., Ali, M., and Christaras, B., Diagnosis of Weathered Coptic Wall Paintings in the Wadi El Natrun Region, Egypt, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10 (3), 2009, pp. 152-157.

Point 3: Results: It is not clear if the mortar samples provided come from one or multiple samples.

Response 3: it is mentioned in the paper that the mortar sample is derived from the western wall of the church.

Regarding the analytical data provided, I am not sure that the use of μ-XRF and SEM/EDS was necessary or even useful. It appears that the mineralogical composition provided by the XRD was enough to identify certain phases of interest. What additional information was provided by the major, minor and trace elemental composition?

Response: other instruments are used to emphasize the results of the XRD analysis.

Point 4: Clay mineralogy: What is the significance of the presence of halloysite in the mortar samples? How are these clay minerals affecting the studied building material? 

Response 4: More details were added concerning this topic.

Point 5: Biological study: As before, what is the significance of the presence of the various types of fungi identified? How do they affect the studied material? Also, no information is given on the wall paintings of the church, although it appears that that the composition of the pigments affects greatly the types and degree of biodeterioration.

Response 5: More details were added concerning this topic.

Point 6: Discussion: The information offered on this section is a bibliographical summary, therefore it is more suitable for the Introduction. There is in fact no discussion on the results of the present study and their significance.

Response 6: More details were added concerning this topic.

Point 7: Conclusions: Again, only a summary of the observations made through this study is presented, without any actual conclusion. In Line 243 is mentioned that “a certain role is played by the clay minerals and microorganisms in the deterioration process”; what is this role? How is the monument affected?

Response 7: More details were added concerning this topic.

Point 8: It would be useful if the manuscript was edited by a native English speaker. Check especially the use of semicolons and parentheses, which in many cases does not make sense.

Response 8: The paper was revised by a native English speaker.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper “Monitoring Coptic Masonry Affected by Clay Minerals and Microorganisms at the Church of Virgin Mary, Wadi El-Natrun (Egypt)” by A. Moussa and M. Roshdy deals with the characterization of mortars and plasters of Coptic architecture units of the church of Virgin Mary in Wadi El-Natrun (Egypt) through the employment of a combined approach based on X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS). Furthermore, the assessment of microbial degradation was also carried out revealing the presence of specific fungi of the Aspergillus glaucus type, together with Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus occhraceus, and Aspergillus caudidus.

In my opinion the paper lacks of accuracy in most parts. I found a general confusion in the results section which strongly reduces the overall quality of the manuscript. The reported data are anything but accurate and the main conclusions are not properly convincing or comprehensive. In the case of X-Ray fluorescence, there is no discussion about the obtained data nor a table highlighting the presence of major elements as well as those in traces.  

Accordingly, the submitted manuscript, in order to be suitable for publication needs an extensive improvement throughout all sections.

1. I would suggest a change in the title. I strongly recommend to include something related to the “spectroscopic characterization”, being the paper mostly dedicated to the material characterization through the employment of different spectroscopic techniques.
2. In the introduction section a revision should be carried out in order to make it more fluent and understandable. First, I would significantly reduce the part related to the description of the investigated site. Almost 66 lines are too much for introducing the planimetry of the Monastery of Saint Mary. Please reduce it in order to avoid the overabundance of not-strictly necessary information which, on the contrary, leads to general confusion. In fact, in the present form, the introduction seems to be composed of two different parts: the first one from line 24 to line 92; and a second one from 93 to 99. In this sense, authors are encouraged to merge these two parts better. This would improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Finally, I would include some sentences describing the importance, in the broad framework of the scientific examinations carried out on building materials through various complementary spectroscopic techniques, of the identification of elements and minerals, in the view of future restoration and conservation strategies to be applied.

- Please change “It was established in the first half of the (1st H./7th G.) century in the place of the Monastery of St. John the Short and was listed in the history of monasteries” in “It was constructed in the first half of the (1st H./7th G.) century in the place of the Monastery of St. John the Short and was listed in the history of monasteries.”

- “It was named Al-Surian by a Syrian who had a prominent position in the Egyptian government who noticed that the Syrians spread in scattered monasteries and bought this monastery from the patriarch at the time”. Please, a re-phrase of this sentence is strongly necessary.

- Line 35: “The western and the eastern.”. Change in “The western and the eastern part”

- Line 40: “The northern and the…”. Please change in “the northern and the…” (not capitol T).

3. Line 114: “1N” ?, is it “1M” ??
4. Lines 118-119: “The <2 μm fractions of the samples were separated into three fractions (2–1, 1–0.25 and <0.25 μm) by an IEC centrifuge”. Please change in “Fractions having dimension less than 2 microns were separated into other three different fractions (2–1, 1–0.25 and <0.25 μm) by an IEC centrifuge”.
5. Please add the full name of IEC.
6. Lines 123-125: Author have already spoken about the XRD analysis at lines 101-106. This is a repetition. Please remove.
7. In my opinion, the Results section needs an extensive improvement and deepening. Lines 136-158 are totally confusing probably due to a substantial weakness in the logical sequence of the results presentation.

- First of all, I would suggest to start with the XRF results and discussing about the obtained elemental compositions, then SEM-EDX and XRD.

-The sentence “the presence of high amount of gypsum in the
sample was also assured by the mean of μ-XRF, Figure 5 (a).”  it is definitely not sufficient to justify the employment of the X-Ray fluorescence technique. A proper discussion of the obtained XRF data should be carried out.

- Please include in Figure 3, a panel showing the investigated mortar sample. Also, include the units as they are currently missing.

-Line 148: “unpainted part of the wall; the plaster layer”. Please change in “unpainted part of the wall. The plaster layer”.

-Line 151: “(CaCO3), 7% quartz (SO2) and 1% plagioclase (mainly albite)”. Please fix all the format typos related chemical formulas.

- Figure 4: add labels and units.

- Figure 5: add labels and units.

- Lines 152-154: Authors stated that the XRD peak at 11.6° is due to the presence of halloysite clay mineral. However, as reported in many relevant papers (see, for example, doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.067), such contribution generally falls at ~9-10 ° (2theta). How author assigned the observed peak to halloysite?. Please comment.

- Figure 6: add labels and units.

- Figure 7: I do not understand the reason to show such figure as no XRD peaks can be observed. I would suggest to remove it.

8. Line 217: In order reinforce such statement I would suggest to add here, after ref 23, of the many references the following ones: doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.01.016, doi:10.1140/epjp/i2018-12231-7, doi:10.1016/j.jksues.2019.07.002, doi:10.3390/ma13132918 and doi:10.1109/IWAGPR.2017.7996085.
9. In my opinion, the conclusion section should be completely re-written. It is hardly understandable and does not provide a clear explanation of the main points of this study as well as of the different experimental methods employed. I suggest to put in evidence the state-of-art in this field of research, what is sought and main achievements found.
10. I would strongly suggest a careful review of the English style throughout the paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We would like first to thank the reviewer for his/her very important, useful and constructive comments.

Point 1: I would suggest a change in the title. I strongly recommend to include something related to the “spectroscopic characterization”, being the paper mostly dedicated to the material characterization through the employment of different spectroscopic techniques.

Response 1: We don't agree with the reviewer's comment.  

Point 2: In the introduction section a revision should be carried out in order to make it more fluent and understandable. First, I would significantly reduce the part related to the description of the investigated site. Almost 66 lines are too much for introducing the planimetry of the Monastery of Saint Mary. Please reduce it in order to avoid the overabundance of not-strictly necessary information which, on the contrary, leads to general confusion. In fact, in the present form, the introduction seems to be composed of two different parts: the first one from line 24 to line 92; and a second one from 93 to 99. In this sense, authors are encouraged to merge these two parts better. This would improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Finally, I would include some sentences describing the importance, in the broad framework of the scientific examinations carried out on building materials through various complementary spectroscopic techniques, of the identification of elements and minerals, in the view of future restoration and conservation strategies to be applied.

- Please change “It was established in the first half of the (1st H./7th G.) century in the place of the Monastery of St. John the Short and was listed in the history of monasteries” in “It was constructed in the first half of the (1st H./7th G.) century in the place of the Monastery of St. John the Short and was listed in the history of monasteries.”

- “It was named Al-Surian by a Syrian who had a prominent position in the Egyptian government who noticed that the Syrians spread in scattered monasteries and bought this monastery from the patriarch at the time”. Please, a re-phrase of this sentence is strongly necessary.

- Line 35: “The western and the eastern.”. Change in “The western and the eastern part”

- Line 40: “The northern and the…”. Please change in “the northern and the…” (not capitol T).

Response 2: This description represents almost the first complete scientific documentation written in English about the church.

-The word "established" was replaced with "constructed"

-Sentence was deleted

-Modified

-Modified

Point 3: Line 114: “1N” ?, is it “1M” ??

Response 3: It is 1N (N for Normality).

Point 4: Lines 118-119: “The <2 μm fractions of the samples were separated into three fractions (2–1, 1–0.25 and <0.25 μm) by an IEC centrifuge”. Please change in “Fractions having dimension less than 2 microns were separated into other three different fractions (2–1, 1–0.25 and <0.25 μm) by an IEC centrifuge”.

Response 4: Sentence was replaced.

Point 5: Please add the full name of IEC.

Response 5: Full name was added.

Point 6: Lines 123-125: Author have already spoken about the XRD analysis at lines 101-106. This is a repetition. Please remove.

Response 6: Sentence was removed.

Point 7: In my opinion, the Results section needs an extensive improvement and deepening. Lines 136-158 are totally confusing probably due to a substantial weakness in the logical sequence of the results presentation.

- First of all, I would suggest to start with the XRF results and discussing about the obtained elemental compositions, then SEM-EDX and XRD.

-The sentence “the presence of high amount of gypsum in the
sample was also assured by the mean of μ-XRF, Figure 5 (a).”  it is definitely not sufficient to justify the employment of the X-Ray fluorescence technique. A proper discussion of the obtained XRF data should be carried out.

- Please include in Figure 3, a panel showing the investigated mortar sample. Also, include the units as they are currently missing.

-Line 148: “unpainted part of the wall; the plaster layer”. Please change in “unpainted part of the wall. The plaster layer”.

-Line 151: “(CaCO3), 7% quartz (SO2) and 1% plagioclase (mainly albite)”. Please fix all the format typos related chemical formulas.

- Figure 4: add labels and units.

- Figure 5: add labels and units.

- Lines 152-154: Authors stated that the XRD peak at 11.6° is due to the presence of halloysite clay mineral. However, as reported in many relevant papers (see, for example, doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.067), such contribution generally falls at ~9-10 ° (2theta). How author assigned the observed peak to halloysite?. Please comment.

- Figure 6: add labels and units.

- Figure 7: I do not understand the reason to show such figure as no XRD peaks can be observed. I would suggest to remove it.

Response 7: The section of results is just describing what was found in the studied samples.

-The corresponding author used to start with XRD in all his published papers.

-Tables were added.

-Done.

-Done.

-It is well known that the vertical is RI and the horizontal is 2 theta.

-Figures were removed.

Point 8: Line 217: In order reinforce such statement I would suggest to add here, after ref 23, of the many references the following ones: doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.01.016, doi:10.1140/epjp/i2018-12231-7,doi:10.1016/j.jksues.2019.07.002, doi:10.3390/ma13132918 and doi:10.1109/IWAGPR.2017.7996085.

Response 8: Related references were already added.

Point 9: In my opinion, the conclusion section should be completely re-written. It is hardly understandable and does not provide a clear explanation of the main points of this study as well as of the different experimental methods employed. I suggest to put in evidence the state-of-art in this field of research, what is sought and main achievements found.

Response 9: Conclusion was improved.

Point 10: I would strongly suggest a careful review of the English style throughout the paper.

Response 10: Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1) In Fig.6 what is the 21 peak? Mention in the caption or text please. Also add units in the axis or describe in caption the X-Y axis units.

2) In 3.2 biological study...: ERite better the 1, 2, 3...eg. a) Aspergillus flavus...b)...c)...d)...e)....Avoid 1-, 2- etc.

3) In Fig 1 or 2 please add a map of the region indicating the church location. e.g for a real photo:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deir_as_Suriani.jpg,

and for a map of the region, see map here, properly citing the source of origin (Starodubcev 2018, Fig.3).

Starodubcev Tatjana ( 2018)  ArticleBetween iconographic patterns and motifs from everyday life. The scene of an eye surgery performed by Saint Colluthos. Zograf, 42, 1-24.
Except if authors have their own photo and map in good resolution

4) a photos of samples or locations of sampling must be included giving reference. Never an analysis is made out of a black mirror. The sample must be documented.

5) In what respect the present work differs from earlier in 2009 no.21?

Moussa et al 2009. Please make a point.

6) recommended references are not included in text and references at the end.

Author Response

• In Fig.6 what is the 21 peak? Mention in the caption or text please. Also add units in the axis or describe in caption the X-Y axis units.

Done

• In 3.2 biological study...: ERite better the 1, 2, 3...eg. a) Aspergillus flavus...b)...c)...d)...e)....Avoid 1-, 2- etc.

These were added by the native English speaker who revised the paper and I deleted them.

3) In Fig 1 or 2 please add a map of the region indicating the church location. e.g for a real photo:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deir_as_Suriani.jpg,

and for a map of the region, see map here, properly citing the source of origin (Starodubcev 2018, Fig.3).

Starodubcev Tatjana ( 2018)  ArticleBetween iconographic patterns and motifs from everyday life. The scene of an eye surgery performed by Saint Colluthos. Zograf, 42, 1-24.
Except if authors have their own photo and map in good resolution

Done

• a photos of samples or locations of sampling must be included giving reference. Never an analysis is made out of a black mirror. The sample must be documented.

This is difficult in such huge place, moreover; photographing inside the church is very limited, I think that the places of the samples are well described

5) In what respect the present work differs from earlier in 2009 no.21?

Moussa et al 2009. Please make a point.

The current study discusses the effect of clay minerals and microorganisms on the building materials at the church, while the previous study (Moussa et al 2009) discusses the effect of soluble salts on those building materials, previous study also included a discussion of the climatic conditions and a study of the surrounding saline lakes water contents.

6) recommended references are not included in text and references at the end.

I added 2 of them.

1. Kamel, A.M.A., Dehydration of Gypsum Component of Plasters and Stuccos in Some Egyptian Archaeological Buildings and Evaluation of K₂SO₄ Activator as a Consolidant, Scientific Culture, 2019, Volume 5 [2], pp. 49–59, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2649508
2. Theologitis, A., Kapridaki, C., Kallithrakas-Kontos, N., Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki P., and Fotiou, A., Mortar and Plaster Analysis as a Directive to the Design of Compatible Restoration Materials in Frangokastello (Crete), Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 2021, Volume 21 [1], pp. 109-120, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4284427

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the points made in the revision in an adequate way.

Author Response

Thank you so much

Reviewer 3 Report

I regret to point out that the authors did not take into consideration almost any of my comments and/or suggestions. The paper is essentially the same as the original version, and for this reason it still contains serious issues that have not been resolved. According to the aforementioned considerations, I have to express against its publication.

Author Response

We are sure that the reviewer will change his mind when he revise the last version of our manuscript