Biofouling Removal Using a Novel Electronic System for Driving an Array of High Power Marinised Transducers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Biofouling removal using ultrasound transducers
Mohamad Salimi, Makis Livadas, Ahmed Teyeb, Evelyne El Masri, Tat- Hean Gan
Language needs minor revision; some examples are identified.
Line 22
A layer of an organism called biofilm rapidly covers any surfaces that are submerged in the sea. It works as a foundation for biofouling growth.
In order to avoid singular and plural mix, I suggest: A layer of an organism called biofilm rapidly covers any surfaces that are submerged in the sea. They work as a foundation for biofouling growth. I doubt about “any surfaces”
Line 46
Two types of cavitation exist, inertial cavitation and non-inertial cavitation. Inertial cavitation is the process where a bubble in a liquid quickly collapses, producing a shock wave [13,14]. Inertial cavitation occurs in nature in the strikes of mantis shrimps and pistol shrimps, as well as in the vascular tissues of plants. Non-inertial cavitation, on the other hand, is the process in which a bubble is forced to oscillate due to some form of input, such as an acoustic field. Non-inertial cavitation is often employed in ultrasonic cleaning baths [15,16].
Avoid repetition replacing for example with “the first one” or “it”.
Line 71
in reference work ([30]. Typing error.
General comments
I find the work interesting, relevant and well written.
- Title: reflect the paper content.
- Abstract: OK, Include some headline numbers from the results.
Lines 9 and 10 “Due to changes in the sea level during the day and night “If you are referring to the tidal phenomenon, it would be convenient to replace this phrase with "due to changes in the sea level for effect of tidal phenomenon".
Line 129. Please indicate the number of the graphic.
Line 154. It would be useful to add the country in the identification of the BIC center.
Line 155-157. For example cancel “as shown as” and put the name of the figure i8 in parentheses.
Line 218. In this sentence the verb is missing, this section is to evaluate.
Line 254. The number of the equation must be 2.
Line 260. Error! Reference source 260 not found.
Line 283. 100 Hz.
In general, the numbers in the text were followed by the unit without leaving a space, but in other points they were separated by a space. Please uniform according to the posting instructions.
Figure 15 is not clear, some lines are not differentiated, maybe a thicker line can be made.
Conclusions:
The conclusions constitute a summary of the work carried out that includes part of the conclusions. If you want to keep the title conclusions, you should reformulate them. Another possibility is to make a summary with the relative modification
Author Response
Thanks for reviewing the paper and the valuable comments. The point by point response is given in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1)The authors shall provide information on the antifouling efficiency of ultrasonics from different researchers; especially the differential efficiency for different macrofoulers;
2) The authors said the biofouling removal was done for the access ladder, but in the main content it was undertaken for a rectangular plate, in which readers are not sure whether the biofouling removal test was well designed, how many times it was repeated, and whether it can represent the biofouling conditions of the access ladder.
3) The biofouling removal shall be quantitatively illustrated either in literature or the test undertaken in this study. The authors better provide antifouling effects for different macrofoulers specifically rich in the tested sea region.
4) the water PH shall be "the water pH";
5) The styles in different references shall be consistent with each other:
35. Legg, M.; Yücel, M.K.; de Carellan, I.G.; Kappatos, V.; Selcuk, C.; Gan, T.H. Acoustic Methods for 434
Biofouling Control: A Review. Ocean Engineering 2015, 103, 237–247. 435
36. Aganin, A.A.; Ilgamov, M.A.; Kosolapova, L.A.; Malakhov, V.G. Dynamics of a Cavitation Bubble near a 436
Solid Wall. Thermophysics and Aeromechanics 2016, 23, 211–220. 437
37. Warburton, G.B. The Vibration of Rectangular Plates. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 438
1954, 168, 371–384.
The styles of the three above are different from other literature;
6)Figure 2. (a) Plain and (b) marinised transducer.
Revise the figure 2 to make it cleaner and more beautiful, to clearly show where their difference is.
Author Response
Thanks for reviewing the paper and the valuable comments. The point by point response is given in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
the manuscript entitled "Biofouling removal using ultrasound transducers" by Mohamad Salimi and co-workers discusses the use of proposed system (hardware) for biofouling removal. The proposed solution finds practical application for removing biofouling from steel structures submerged in seawater, such as wind turbine masts. The article includes an analysis of the state of the art (about 50% of the articles in the references are from the last 5-6 years), a description of the system used during the experiment, and obtained results. I appreciate the contribution that the Authors made in preparing the experiment and the manuscript. However, in my opinion the manuscript needs to be improved in some fields and some general remarks as well as the specific comments are bellow.
Evaluation of the paper, general remarks, editorial comments/typos:
1) In line 8, the Authors use the personal form ("… ensure their safe and effective operation...."). This is not correct in high-quality articles. It suggests modifying this part of the article. Please check the entire article in terms of personal form (i.e. line 96 "...we require...").
2) The Abstract section should present quantitative results and not only the most important qualitative results and/or generic considerations. Therefore, significant improvements are expected in this section of the manuscript.
3) line 28 - the Authors have written: "...to produce a fouling community, see Figure 1 (a)...", In my opinion this part of the manuscript should be changed: to produce a fouling community (Figure 1(a)).
4) line 41 - the same remark as above, there is: "...researchers, for example see [9,10]...", it should be: ...researchers [9,10].
5) line 71 - please remove part of round bracket,
6) line 80-89 - the Authors present the goal of the research. Please indicate in this section of the article what its novelty is in relation to the current state of knowledge.
7) In section "2.1. Marinised power ultrasonic transducers" Authors desribed ultrasonic transducer. In my opinion, detailed information for used transducer is missing. Please add them. In addition, Figures 3 and 4 are illegible. Please enlarge them or make your own drawings based on data such as text data from the device.
8) line 104 - please change Figure 2 caption, i.e. Figure 2. Transducers used in tests: (a) plain transducer, (b) marinised transducer.
9) line 127 - there is "50cm" and should be 50 cm, please check entire tekst and change notation of values and units (i.e. line 136, 162, 164, etc.).
10) Figure 7 - Authors presented Maximum Peak to Peak displacements for plain and marinised transducer configuration. Is there an average value in the Figure? How many measurements were taken? What is the error of the obtained values? Please plot these errors in the Figure.
11) line 179 - the dot is missing at the end of the sentence.
12) Authors present their results but without any discussion supported by the literature. When the results are not discussed and conveniently supported by the open literature, questionable conclusions are obtained. Currently, the article looks more like a report from test than a scientific article. Improvement in the description of the test results is required.
13) line 296 and 309 - the same number of chapters, please change it.
14) Research articles should present the directions of further research. I suggest adding one paragraph in the 5. Conclusion chapter.
The above modifications should be implemented before considering the manuscript for publication. I hope these suggestions can help to improve the quality of this paper.
I wish you all the best.
Author Response
Thanks for reviewing the paper and the valuable comments. The point by point response is given in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors said the biofouling removal was done for the access ladder, but in the main content it was undertaken for a rectangular plate, in which readers are not sure whether the biofouling removal test was well designed, how many times it was repeated, and whether it can represent the biofouling conditions of the access ladder. So it is trongly suggested that the authors be patient in anti-biofouling test on the ladders before further submission.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
the manuscript entitled "Biofouling removal using ultrasound transducers" by Mohamad Salimi and co-workers has been significantly improved. Thank you for taking my suggestions into consideration and making modifications to the manuscript.
One thing can be modified at the proofreading stage:
1) constantly in the article there is a personal form, e.g. line 37 (They work), 68, 114, 131, 168. Please modify the sentences in the final version of the manuscript.
The article entitled "Biofouling removal using ultrasound transducers" can be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences Journal.
I wish you all the best.
