Study on Spray Characteristics and Breakup Mechanism of an SCR Injector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well-written, so would be considered for acceptance after revising the following minor points:
#1: Figure 5: The author should explain the sudden drop of radial velocity from ca.7 to ca.5 m/s at 2.0 ms.
#2: P.9 L.241: Re number and We number, => Re number and Oh number, ?
#3: P.11, L.273: breakup modes in Figure 9. => in Figure 8. ?
#4: P11, L.294: kapusta et al. => Kapusta et al.
#5: P.12, L.302: and velocity distribution (*) an inlet pressure of 0.6 MPa. => (*): appropriate preposition should be inserted.
#6: P.12, L.304: 3%0
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, it’s a well written manuscript. The method proposed a new idea for studying a typical commercial non-air-assisted UWS injector which is helpful to reveal the primary breakup of droplets. And was able to establish the enhanced forecast accuracy in simulation related to SCR system. This manuscript is recommended to publish.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has the following shortcomings that I believe should be addressed, as outlined below:
· Innovation is not outstanding enough. It is necessary to highlight the innovation to increase the novelty of the article. In its current form, the manuscript contains a series of cited papers. I do not contradict the value of these papers, or their relevance in this context, but I consider that the article under review will benefit if the authors extend the manuscript by analyzing appropriately the cited papers and summarizing the previous articles to show the difference between these published studies. Therefore, the authors should improve the manuscript to show the importance of the topic.
· The authors need to explain the methodology and the results clearly.
The main concern is around the purpose of the paper, and how the outputs could be used. The title, abstract, and conclusions do not make this clear. There is no real consideration of the usefulness of the results. I would reject this paper in its present form but would encourage the authors to submit a comprehensively revised version of the paper with relevant knowledge gaps, context, discussion, and methodological rigor that would create an impact in this field of study
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors response to all the comments
