The results highlight variations in spray penetration and dispersion angles; were any detailed stability assessments performed to evaluate how these emulsions behave over extended storage periods? Additionally, the study demonstrates delayed micro-explosion effects with higher biosurfactant concentrations. Could the authors elaborate on whether this delay impacts combustion efficiency or emissions in real engine conditions?

The prior comment correctly points out that the authors did not present any long-term emulsion stability assessments or real-engine validation of the delayed micro-explosion effects. In fact, the study remains limited to spray visualization and micro-explosion observation under constant-volume combustion chamber (CVCC) conditions, and no direct conclusions about practical combustion efficiency or emissions in real engines can be substantiated from the presented data. Without systematic aging tests or engine trials, it is premature to imply that these emulsified fuels, with varying biosurfactant concentrations, would perform stably or beneficially under realistic operational scenarios.
Furthermore, the reported variability in micro-explosion timing for droplets of nearly identical sizes (Section 3.3) raises a critical concern regarding the internal consistency and reproducibility of the emulsion itself. The paper does not provide any verification of compositional uniformity at the droplet level (e.g., optical mapping, droplet-resolved analysis), nor does it rule out microscale phase separation or mixing artifacts. In this context, how can the authors be confident that the observed variations in micro-explosion behavior are intrinsic to the emulsified fuel formulation rather than experimental artifacts due to incomplete emulsification or instability? Without addressing this, the reliability of the reported trends across biosurfactant concentrations remains questionable.