Design of Hybrid Cooling System for Thermal Management of Lithium-Ion Batteries Using Immersion Method with Nanofluid Supported Heat Pipes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article introduces a hybrid cooling system that integrates immersion cooling with nanofluid enhanced heat pipes to regulate the thermal performance of lithium-ion batteries. The subject matter fits within the journal Energies' focus on "Energy Storage and Thermal Management" and demonstrates a degree of innovation and practical relevance. Nonetheless, the paper needs enhancements in experimental method clarity, depth of data analysis, and overall structural coherence.
Specific recommendations for improvement are commented below. All references to a page number are based on the 31-page PDF document energies-3521772
Point 1: In the Abstract section, the statement "At a certain flow rate, the refrigerant is transferred to the refrigerant as a result of the withdrawal of the refrigerant from the heat pipe" contains an error that may lead to confusion. (Page 2)
Point 2: In the introduction section, “As a result of the experimental study, the system was able to keep the temperature below 70 °C in the aluminum block operating with a heat flux of 220 kW/m2 without any additional energy consumption”, it should be noted that the unit for heat flux density should be corrected from kW/m2 to KW/m2. (Page 8)
Point 3: The chapter title does not comply with the standards, the "2 Method" section is missing the "2.1" subsection, and the expression in "2.2 Findings" is not accurate enough. It is recommended to revise it to "2.2 Results and Discussion." (Page 9)
Point 4: The schematic diagram of the experimental setup (Figure 2.1) lacks clarity, and certain experimental devices are not labeled in English. Additionally, there are no detailed parameters or structural schematic diagrams for the heat pipe included. (Page 10)
Point 5: The table formatting requires additional enhancements (Table 2.1- Table 2.12). Data should be centered wherever feasible, and temperature values should use a decimal point rather than a comma to prevent confusion. (Page 10)
Point 6: The clarity of Figure 2.2 is insufficient; In the initial half of the test, the lines overlap considerably, which complicates the comparison of their values. Furthermore, the horizontal axis does not have any units. It is advisable to modify the image format to enhance the clarity of the data distribution and improve its visual appeal. (Page 11)
Point 7: In Section 2.2, the sentence "In Table 6.2 and Figure 6.2, the experiments performed in the straight heat pipe system are compared" should be modified to "Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2" to avoid mismatches between the figure/table numbers and the descriptions. (Page 11)
Point 8: The evaluation benchmark for efficiency improvement is unreasonable. According to the measurement results in Table 2.2, CuO nanofluid doped heat pipes were 28.41% (not 39.68%) more efficient than pure water in reducing the average cell temperature and 13.1% (not 16.67%) more efficient than Al2O3 nanoparticle doped heat pipes.(Page 12)
Point 9: The error analysis is insufficient. At the end of section 2, it mentions, "The total error rate was calculated as Ws = ±7.418 and was considered acceptable," but it does not provide relevant references to explain the method of error calculation or the basis for determining whether this error is acceptable. Additionally, there is a lack of analysis regarding the sources of error, such as the uncertainty of the measuring equipment. (Page 25)
Point 10: The efficiency calculation results are questionable. In the conclusion section, the authors mention that "Battery surface temperatures reaching up to 30.6°C at 3C current intensity against heat pipes with very good cooling systems can be improved up to 4.4°C with the most efficient hybrid cooling system designed. This corresponds to an efficiency of approximately 681.8%." However, the physical explanation and calculation method for efficiency are lacking, and an efficiency of 681.8% is unreasonable. It is recommended to reassess using standard heat transfer coefficients or cooling percentage. (Page 26)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
It is advisable to employ a broader variety of English expressions in order to prevent a monotonous writing style throughout the entirety of the article.
Author Response
The recommended arrangements have been made under your guidance.
I thank you for your interest and sincerity and wish you success in your work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of the paper
Design of hybrid cooling system for thermal management of lithium-ion batteries using immersion method with nanofluids supported heat pipes
1) Table 2.1. Specify what mean “e water”, “c water” and “ohs water”.
2) There is a strange section 2. “Method” and more interesting there is no section 2.1, but exists section 2.2. I believe the sections “Materials and methods” as well as “Results and discussion” should be presented.
3) There are two figures 2.1.
4) There is neither any pagination in the paper nor the lining.
5) First of Fig. 2.1. Please redraw it, it looks very dimly, and the text is unreadable.
6) Second of Fig. 2.1. The numbers in the X-axis are overlapping each other.
7) Results discussed in section 2 need some theoretical base: (i) why some additions of nano particles plays any role? (ii) what are the physical properties of modified liquids? (iii) how they have been measured?
8) Without a theoretical background the presented results have very low scientific impact.
That is why the paper could not be recommended for publication.
Author Response
The recommended arrangements have been made under your guidance.
I thank you for your interest and sincerity and wish you success in your work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have thoroughly corrected all issues.
The paper could be accepted in present form.
