We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the methodological nature of the study. More specifically, we have stated that the present work is an analytical and scenario-based study rather than an experimental investigation based on laboratory or field measurements. The framework relies on literature-derived parameters, technical specifications, and comparative analytical modeling. We fully agree that laboratory experiments and local calibration campaigns would strengthen the statistical validation of the proposed framework. For this reason, we have explicitly included this point in the revised manuscript as a priority for future work. This change can be found in Section 1 (Introduction), Section 6.3 (Study Limitations and Applicability), and Section 6.4 (Future Work).

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback on this matter. Based on their input, we have updated the manuscript to better explain the methodological approach of our study. We have now clearly indicated that this work represents an analytical and scenario-based investigation, not an experimental study involving laboratory or field data collection. Our framework draws upon parameters from existing literature, technical specifications, and comparative analytical models. We completely agree that conducting laboratory experiments and local calibration efforts would enhance the statistical robustness of our proposed framework. Therefore, we have specifically added this recommendation to the revised manuscript as a key area for future research. These modifications appear in Section 1 (Introduction), Section 6.3 (Study Limitations and Applicability), and Section 6.4 (Future Work).