Significance of Slippage and Electric Field in Mucociliary Transport of Biomagnetic Fluid
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We really appreciate the important comments, corrections and suggestions by the honorable referee. The detailed point by point reply to the issues raised by the referee is given below:
|
Q |
Reviewer Comment |
Response |
|
1 |
The abstract must be revised by highlighting the contribution clearly. |
The abstract has been revised by emphasizing the contributions. |
|
2 |
Punctuation is missing in the 3rd paragraph of the 2nd page. |
Punctuation has been added. |
|
3 |
Make sure that all the dimensions are clearly mentioned for the governing model. |
The manuscript has been checked for grammatical and typo mistakes. |
|
4 |
Analysis part is well done. A comparison table with related study is recommended. |
A comparison of current solution with numerical scheme has been provided in the updated manuscript (see table 1) |
|
5 |
Updating reference list |
The reference list has been revised as suggested. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The author investigated the Prandtl fluid model under the effect of the electric field, magnetic field, and velocity slippage. The model and calculation were provided. However, the discussion and novelty of this work should be emphasized.
1. The method and figures are similar to the previous publication in reference 43 in Coatings (2020). The figures showed slight differences in some parameters. The author discussed the factors that may affect the shear stress, but few efforts were put into this part.
2. How was the figure 19 & 20 generated?
3. The result part introduced the figures, more discussions should be added to explain the meaning of each figure.
Author Response
We really appreciate the important comments, corrections and suggestions by the honorable referee. The detailed point by point reply to the issues raised by the referee is given below:
|
Q |
Reviewer Comment |
Response |
|
1 |
The method and figures are similar to the previous publication in reference 43 in Coatings (2020). The figures showed slight differences in some parameters. The author discussed the factors that may affect the shear stress, but few efforts were put into this part. |
A few more figures for shear stress and velocity profile have been introduced for different parameters and a few figures which had similarity with the old article have been replaced. |
|
2 |
How was the figure 19 & 20 generated? |
Figures 19 and 20 are produced by using Eqs. (23). The equation has been incorporated. |
|
3 |
The result part introduced the figures, more discussions should be added to explain the meaning of each figure. |
The discussion part has been improved by adding more interpretation of figures. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript the authors considered a visco-inelastic Prandtl fluid in ciliated channel with slippage effect at cilia surface by incorporating the effects of electric and uniform magnetic field. The shear stress and other flow characteristics have been calculated and discussed briefly. Overall, the manuscript is well written and well organized. The analysis of results seems also fine. However, it can further be improved if the author agrees to include the following too:
- The article requires a schematic diagram to understand the flow geometry clearly.
- The discussion part requires more elaboration, for example, while discussing Figs. 16-18, author just wrote that bolus size increases or decreases. It should be explained that what is meant by increasing or decreasing of bolus size.
- The approximate analytic solution must be validated by giving a comparison with already published results at some limiting case.
If the authors agree to follow the above suggestions, then the manuscript can be accepted for publication in the journal Lubricants.
Author Response
We really appreciate the important comments, corrections and suggestions by the honorable referee. The detailed point by point reply to the issues raised by the referee is given below:
|
Q |
Reviewer Comment |
Response |
|
1 |
The article requires a schematic diagram to understand the flow geometry clearly. |
The diagram has been added. See Figure 1 |
|
2 |
The discussion part requires more elaboration, for example, while discussing Figs. 16-18, author just wrote that bolus size increases or decreases. It should be explained that what is meant by increasing or decreasing of bolus size. |
The discussion part has been improved by adding more interpretation of figures. |
|
3 |
The approximate analytic solution must be validated by giving a comparison with already published results at some limiting case. |
A comparison of current solution with numerical scheme has been provided in the updated manuscript (see table 1) |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript can be accepted in present form
