Heat Transfer Mechanism Investigation of Bubble Growth on the Superhydrophilic Nano-Structured Surface Using Moving Particle Semi-Implicit Method
, Sijun Li, Yubao Zhong, Ronghua Chen, Mingjun Wang, Suizheng Qiu, Wenxi Tian and Guanghui Su
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject study discusses the bubble growth on nano-structured surface using a moving particle semi-implicit method. The topic is interesting and the applied methods are convincing. However, the novelty is not convincingly stated as the applied strategy is the combination of the two already existing strategies. Furthermore, i have the following comments that needs to be addressed to improve the quality of the paper:
Some undefined abbreviations are written in the abstract. For example, MPS, MPS-MAFL.
Abstract does not highlight the key outputs of the study. Please improve the abstract.
A lot of studies have discussed the bubble growth behaviors on nano-structured surfaces. Although your method may be a novel one. Please explore the relevant literature.
What are the quantitative parameters that are new of this study regarding bubble growth on nano-structured surface?
Multiple citations may be removed in the literature review. For example, 11-17, 24-38, 39-43 and so on.
The novel aspect of this study is not convincingly highlighted.
In line 230-231 it is mentioned that the height of two domains' interface in hc, but it is not shown on the diagram.
How the interface tracking is achieved with reference to satisfy the continuity?
Please improve the quality of Figure 6 showing the solution algorithm.
How you decided the thickness of the micro-layer as it is a critical parameter and will change the results significantly.
Figure 8 may be presented quantitatively since in the current form there looks a significant difference between the two presented results.
The validation studies focus the bubble diameter variation while in the results and discussion section heat transfer rates are presented; there should be a validation study of heat transfer rate as well.
It would have been better if the results are presented in the nondimensional numbers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Heat transfer mechanism of bubble growth on the superhydrophilic nano-structured surface is investigated using MPS method and the paper is well organizd. I only have several minor concerns.
(1) There are two Laplacian models, Eq. (6) and (10). What is the difference? Where is Eq. (6) used?
(2) How to implement surface tension model (Eq. (11)) in the calculation?
(3) Will contact angle affect micro layer? From Sec. 2.5, It seems that surface tension and contact angle will not affect micro layer.
(4) How is superheated liquid layer determined? Please add some detailed description about Eq. (22).
(5) About Eqs. (23) and (24), how many particle will obtain heat from micro-layer? How to calculate the area in Eqs. (23) and (24)?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has been reviewed carefully. The authors provide numerical solutions of the model of bubble growth and solving the model with MPS method. I found the paper is well organized and engaging. In my opinion, it can be published after clary some minor points.
1. Do not put bulk citation in a sentence. Line 26-36.
2. Please include a proper citation for equation (1)-(3).
3. If the equation is not yours or derived by you, please put proper citation for the equation.
4. In validation section, how you defined the present simulation and the experimental results are great agreement in Fig. 7? What is the maximum error for the results? Because when t>10, the line for MPS with micro layer model is over all the experimental result. The line must be in between the range of the experimental results. Please justify.
5. Please add some discussion or explanation for Table 1.
6. Please double-check the grammar used in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have responded thoroughly to all the comments and the suggestions are incorporated. The paper may be accepted.
