Does the paper match the scope of the conference?
Yes
Does the paper title reflect the content and purpose of the article?
Yes
Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished?
Yes
Does the paper embrace contemporary issues in the area?
Yes
Is the paper clearly written and easily understood?
Understood with effort
Do conclusions illustrate the research results, findings, and recommendations, providing suggestions for future research?
Partially
Are the references full and grounded?
Yes
Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article
The manuscript is informative, but the English can be improved. Some phrases are awkward or syntactically unclear, especially in the Results and Discussion section. A light language review is recommended to improve the scientific style.
Figures and tables. Table 1 and Figure 1 are useful, but parameter values are found in non-systemic units of measurement (SI-system is recommended), and their designations are incorrectly translated into English ("Н" → "N"). Three-point graphs do not allow us to clearly and unambiguously clarify the nature of the curve and adequately select the appropriate mathematical function for approximation (at least 4-5 experimental points are recommended).
I confirm that there is no conflict of interest regarding the reviewed paper
✔
I confirm that I have the appropriate expertise to review this paper
✔