Optimization of Screen-Hole-Clearing Devices for Mechanized Residual Film–Impurity Separation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

In this research, a method for cleaning the clogged holes of the cylindrical sieve with a horizontal axis has been presented, after analyzing and numerically simulating the effective parameters, its performance has been optimized experimentally.

1-    The authors shall avoid the third forms like I, We, etc. in the entire manuscript.

 2-      In the manuscript is mentioned that the type of sieve is a tumbler sieve.  While, in several cases, including in the description of Figure 5, the phrase “the trommel screen” is used. I think the type of separator is the trommel screen. Please, choose the most appropriate name for the separator after further investigation and use the same name throughout the manuscript.

 3-     In Figure 1, two centrifugal blower fans - on the left and right sides - are visible in the above schematic diagram. However, it is not mentioned in the text. Are two blowers used? Please, say it clearly in the manuscript and explain the reasons for it. Although according to Figure 6, it is clear that there are two blowers.

4-        In Line 181; The reference to Figure 2 is incorrect.

 5-     The numerical simulation method and software are not described. A Title for Computational fluid dynamics simulation should be created in the Materials and Methods section. Numerical simulation results should be presented in the results and discussion section.

 6-   Several comments have been placed on the submitted file. Please be considered.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

 

The current version of the paper is technically comprehensive and very well documented. The author has addressed almost all my comments in a professional manner. The same are also implemented in the revised manuscript. As a reviewer, I am satisfied with the reply of my comments and concerns.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

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 submitted paper provides both a theoretical evaluation and experimental testing of the film-impurity wind separator. There is sufficient justification on the need to study and understand the complex solid-fluids interaction that affects the ability of the separator operate efficiently. However, there are major elements that warrant rejection by the journal editors:

1. Within Section 3.3 there is a cross reference to data in Table 4. Unfortunately, no Table 4 exists to justify the data conclusion.

2. Multiple times throughout the manuscript, extremely long sentences are composed that are difficult to follow from subject-predicate-object grammatical form (examples include lines 39-45; 156-160; 200-205; etc). More clear, succinct statements will better convey the result

3. Within the fitting parameters of the model of Section 2.2, many numerical values are input but without citation as to the validity of the input value.

4. Finally, there appears to be a lack of connectivity of the statistical results of the experiments to the specific parameters of the model. While the contours of Figure 10 attempt to convey the impact of different operational variables, the attempt to correlate 5 experimental data points to the three-dimensional contours is too challenging.

The work does have benefit to operations and the academic community, but in the current formulation, I believe that the journal should reject this submission.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

applsci-1911053-peer-review-v1
Optimization and Testing of a Tumbler Sieve-Type Residual
Film–impurity Wind Separator Screen Hole Cleaning Blockage Device.

 

In this paper, author shares a study on optimization and testing of a tumbler sieve-type residual
film–impurity wind separator screen hole cleaning blockage device. The topic is interesting. However, the paper needs corrections to meet expectations of a journal. Some of my concerns are as follows:

1.      Add a transition paragraph and describe every section as the last paragraph of introduction.

2.      Conclusions should be more synthetic and more about conclusion (not rewriting of abstract). The part with future research directions must be extended. It should be more specific.

3.      The title is not clear, appealing, interesting and specific. I suggest to revise the paper title to make it more concise and suitable.

4.      I also recommend the authors to professionally get the paper proofread, as I have noticed sentences with typos and inappropriate choice of words.

5.      The benefits of the proposed method have been demonstrated clearly. What’s the limitation of the method? Are there other ways that the results can be further improved? One or two remarks should be given to discuss it in detail.

6.      The results were compared with known and good methods in this field and it is not clear or proven how to obtain better results for the whole research. There is no precise or clear detail of the new research idea.

7.      Novelty not clear. A comprehensive table for literature survey should be presented by the authors to show the literature review based on their assumptions, methods, and results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my original review of the paper, I was attempting to be somewhat kind to the authors regarding the quality of the work. There were a multitude of other inadequacies that didn't warrant making the full list since I would be rejecting the paper. The simple changes of long sentences into separate ones by just adding a period and capitalizing the connecting word is insufficient update relative to what was requested as a re-write.

Reviewer 2 Report

No comment