Minimum Velocity of Impingement Fluidization for Parachute-Shaped Vegetables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After corrections of the manuscript text by Authors, overall quality of the research is improved, and it is advised to accept manuscript in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

 I recommend acceptance of the paper.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objective of this study was to analytically determinate of the minimum velocity of fluidization of selected parachute-shaped vegetables

This is an extensive investigation, with a number of numerical and experimental analyses.

The work is interesting from scientific perspective and the proposed manuscript is thematically relevant to the scope of the journal.

I find it appropriate for publication in the Sustainability, in its present form.

The overall organization and structure of the manuscript are appropriate, while the paper is well written.

The goal of the manuscript is well described and the discussion is well approached. The results and discussion well explained by cited literature data.

The scientific novelty of the manuscript is clearly presented.

Statistical interpretation of the analytical data is properly done.

The manuscript language is satisfactory without the need for corrections. The presented investigation is very interesting and well done, and also presented in a compact manner.

In general, there are no doubtful or controversial arguments in the manuscript. The methodology applied in the research is presented in clear manner, so that it is repeatable by other authors.

The results are presented in a logical sequence and the discussion and analysis of the results are properly elaborated.

Conclusions supports presented and discussed results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I suggest to authors consider publishing a manuscript as a professional paper after major revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed ‘Minimum velocity of impingement fluidization for para-chute-shaped vegetables’. Overall, this paper is easy to follow, but the major problem is that the author did not state well what the paper can contribute to the food industry, especially for this type of application oriented paper. In the meantime, I did not see too much of novelty of this research, they just applied previous established equations to get the results, which is kind like an experimental report. Some comments:

1. Introduction starts at 1. Don’t need to have sequence number for nomenclature
2. The introduction section is too long. The author does not need to provide detailed equations for each description. In fact, this is pretty distracted for authors. Just state the current development of this research, research gap, and why conducting this research, what is the novelty of your research should be good enough.
3. Is there any particular reason for selecting these raw materials?
4. What new information is brought to the food industry? How can this knowledge be transformed to the industry?
5. The results are totally based on the experimental set-ups of the authors, how could the results such as minimum velocity of different vegetables be valuable to the industry?

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents an interesting idea of calculating the minimum velocity of impingement fluidization in the case of agro-food products. The investigation is challenging considering the heterogeneity of those. It could have a valuable contribution in this area of research.

For the Abstract part is recommended to add some results in numerical form.

The Introduction should be more comprehensive and include complementary information and references related to the topic addressed.

The Conclusions are also very schematic made. Please reformulate them, making relevant connections with other pertinent investigations presented in the literature. Future perspectives for applications and/or developments in the area might be included.

The paper could be considered for publication after major changes. It has to be revised by the authors and resubmitted with suggested modifications specified in the reviewer’s comments.