Study of Sound Perception Evaluation in Refrigeration Gases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of the issues from the previous review round. Text consistancy and figures have been checked. Indeed they have updated and included new figures, which is good, however at least my version have rather low resolution figures which can hardly be read! I hope you can provide higher resolution/quality images for the final version.
If that is the case, I would consider the paper appropriate for publication at this stage, after minor changes.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

 

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

 

The authors have addressed most of the issues from the previous review round. Text consistency and figures have been checked. Indeed they have updated and included new figures, which is good, however at least my version have rather low resolution figures which can hardly be read! I hope you can provide higher resolution/quality images for the final version. 
If that is the case, I would consider the paper appropriate for publication at this stage, after minor changes. 

 

Discussion. Thank you for your comments. We have improved the quality of the images.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An actual research theme.

Presented study has a good survey, described model, experimental results, all of them adequate to the subject.

The title is very common while the research includes mainly two refrigerant gases. This makes some conclusions disputable.

Part of the conclusions about the COP, efficiency level etc. are stated without presented research and out of the scope of this study.

The conclusion about improving noise level in the Cordoba University area is non professional.

The paper could be improved by mentioning of different solutions for noise reduction in refrigerant systems like treated in this study.

English is good.

Conclusions have to be focused on the research.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

 

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

 

Presented study has a good survey, described model, experimental results, all of them adequate to the subject.

 

Issue 1. The title is very common while the research includes mainly two refrigerant gases. This makes some conclusions disputable.

 

Response: according to reviewer comment, we have changed the title of the paper; this being suggested by another reviewer.

 

Issue 2. Part of the conclusions about the COP, efficiency level etc. are stated without presented research and out of the scope of this study.

 

Response: according to reviewer comment, this has been changed by thermodymanic parameters. The aim of this sentence is to transmit that both refrigeration gases (R134A and R404A) can be substitute of R449A without change any change in the refrigeration system.

 

Issue 3. The conclusion about improving noise level in the Cordoba University area is non professional.

 

 

Response: according to reviewer comment, this sentence has been removed. Moreover, the conclusions have been improved.

 

Issue 4. The paper could be improved by mentioning of different solutions for noise reduction in refrigerant systems like treated in this study.

 

Response: according to reviewer comment, two different options for noise reduction have been mentioned in the conclusion.

 

Issue 5. English is good.

 

Response: thank you for your comment.

 

Issue 6. Conclusions have to be focused on the research.

 

Response: according to reviewer comment, the conclusions have been improved.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments:

1. I propose changing the title of the article: “Study of sound perception evaluation in refrigeration gases”

2. Figs. 1,2 are redundant in the Introduction and are not related to the subject of the research.

3. I am asking the authors to expand the Introduction and other relevant references.

4. In Fig. 3 arrange the slides next to each other.

5. To Fig. 4 fill in the labels of individual components instead of numbers.

6. To Fig. 5 insert the label of the acoustic camera and measuring points on the compressor's block.

7. Fill in the fundamental technical parameter of the acoustic camera.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

 

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

 

Issue 1. I propose changing the title of the article: “Study of sound perception evaluation in refrigeration gases”

Response: according to reviewer comment, the title has been changed.

Issue 2. Figs. 1,2 are redundant in the Introduction and are not related to the subject of the research.

Response: according to reviewer comment, Figure 1 has been removed.

Issue 3. I am asking the authors to expand the Introduction and other relevant references.

Response: according to reviewer comment, two more relevant  studies have been included.

Issue 4. In Fig. 3 arrange the slides next to each other.

Response: according to reviewer comment, this has been arranged.

Issue 5. To Fig. 4 fill in the labels of individual components instead of numbers.

Response: according to reviewer comment, the labels have been included in the Figure 4.

Issue 6. To Fig. 5 insert the label of the acoustic camera and measuring points on the compressor's block.

Response: according to reviewer comment, the label of the acoustic camera and measuring points has been included.

Issue 7. Fill in the fundamental technical parameter of the acoustic camera.

Response: according to reviewer comment, the fundamental technical parameter of the acoustic camera has been included.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is quite interesting and will be helpful to the relevant industries and research community. The following questions/suggestion can be answered before further process.

1. The content of the Table 3 is not very much clear. It can be elaborated a little. What are the meanings of "*" and "**" in the Table 3.

2. On line 344: Are the COP values from the authors' experiments or literature? It is the authors' experiments then procedure for the calculation needed to be given.

3. In abstract there is no mention of "R449". I guess it should be added.

4. Line 26 and 27- the sentence needs improvement. 

It is written "this study shown that R404A could be a substitute to R134A in term of noise level." Instead of that please write

"this study shown that R134A could be a substitute to R404A in term of noise level."

5. Line 351- Revise the sentence, it is not clear.

Author Response

Reviewer #4:

 

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

 

The paper is quite interesting and will be helpful to the relevant industries and research community. The following questions/suggestion can be answered before further process.

Issue 1. The content of the Table 3 is not very much clear. It can be elaborated a little. What are the meanings of "*" and "**" in the Table 3.

Response: according to reviewer comment, the meanings of “*” and “**” have been included.

Issue 2. On line 344: Are the COP values from the authors' experiments or literature? It is the authors' experiments then procedure for the calculation needed to be given.

Response: according to reviewer comment, these values have obtained from a

Issue 3. In abstract there is no mention of "R449". I guess it should be added.

Response: this has been a mistake. According to reviewer, this has been added.

Issue 4. Line 26 and 27- the sentence needs improvement. It is written "this study shown that R404A could be a substitute to R134A in term of noise level." Instead of that please write"this study shown that R134A could be a substitute to R404A in term of noise level."

Response: this has been a mistake. According to reviewer comment and our conclusions, this sentence has been changed.

Issue 5. Line 351- Revise the sentence, it is not clear.

Response: according to reviewer comment, this sentence has been modified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf