Optimizing the Auxiliary Air Channels of a Vortex Atomizer by 3D Printing Using the Taguchi Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are some weaknesses through the manuscript which need improvement. Therefore, the submitted manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in this form, but it has a chance of acceptance after a major revision. My comments and suggestions are as follows:
1- Abstract gives information on the main feature of the performed study, but a couple of sentences about the fabrication process must be added.
2- Authors must clarify necessity of the performed research. Objectives of the study must be clearly mentioned in introduction.
3- The literature study must be enriched. In this respect, authors must read and refer to the following relevant papers regarding to printing parameters (a) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2021.12.048 (b) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103552 and other relevant papers.
4- It seems the manuscript is prepared without care. For example: “the fused deposition meth-od using PLA as” in section 2 must be changed to “the fused deposition method using PLA as”.
5- Scale bar must be added to some figures (e.g., Fig. 1).
6- Broaden and update the literature review to better connect to the current effort in the field in the context of 3D printing and mechanical behavior of 3D-printed parts.
7- Details o f 3D printing process for fabrication of specimens must be added.
8- Why this particular 3D printing technique is considered for this study. Scientific reasons must be explained.
8- Novelty needs to be explicit in highlights and abstract.
9- All images (screenshots) must be shown in a high quality.
10- The conclusion must be more than just a summary of the manuscript. List of references must be updated based on the proposed papers. Please provide all changes by red color in the revised version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study, the optimum praying performance of the pressurized vortex atomizer using water as the working fluid was investigated experimentally by modifying the geometry of auxiliary air holes using Taguchi method. The four control factors of the air holes are their numbers, areas, inclination angles, and lengths. With five levels for each control factor, an L25 orthogonal table was selected. Each experiment of the L25 table was repeated three times to obtain key average results. The air holes were fabricated by 3D printing. In the experiments, the spraying patterns were recorded and the droplet weight distributions were measured. By using the signal to noise ratios and the smaller the better quality characteristic, the effect of the control factor in descending order is the number of holes, hole area, hole inclination angle, and hole length. The optimum air hole configuration is the one with 6 holes, inclination angle of 20°, area of 18 mm2, and length of 8 mm. The optimum condition was confirmed by a signal to noise ratio of 20.532 dB with 95% confidence interval.
This paper is looking good but need to address the following concerns
1. Figure 3 Quality is not good
2. Table 4 format is not similar to the other tables
3. Main Novelty of your work need to be explained in detail
4. Comparison of your results with the latest research for knowing the worth of this work
5. Why L25 is selected? Why not L27 or some other number
6. On which basis the table of experiment is selected
7. After complete analysis which is the optimal set of parameters at which results are better
8. Critical discussions need to be add on all comments
9. Conclusions need to be revised.
10. Add a few more references to support your idea
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In present work, the geometry of auxiliary air holes was firstly optimized using Taguchi method and the praying performance of the pressurized vortex atomizer was experimentally studied. It is a typical and interesting work in some specific fields. However, we could not find the novelty of this work. The introduction should be rewritten, where the previous works should not be enumerated and should be summarized in nice order and contents. We recommend some CFD can be conducted and compared with present experimental work. Some related paper may further improve your present work.
Experimental and Computational Multiphase Flow, 2023, 5(1): 67-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42757-021-0119-1
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved and corresponding modifications have been conducted. In my opinion, the current version can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
All the comments are addressed well by the author. The references are added as per the previous concern; However, the following references still need to be added for further quality improvement and to support your idea.
1.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14686996.2018.1431862
This paper is a review of 3D printing techniques.
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0954408919862997
This paper will support your design of experiments and the Taguchi method used for the selection of the optimal set of parameters.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
All the issues have been addressed. It can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
