On the Digital Twin of The Ocean Cleanup Systems—Part I: Calibration of the Drag Coefficients of a Netted Screen in OrcaFlex Using CFD and Full-Scale Experiments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is relevant and significantly improves engineering ideas about a completely new field in cleaning up the ocean from plastic. In terms of calculating the main parameters of the cleaning system, the article is written in great detail and has good results. The authors demonstrated excellent understanding of the software for the dynamic analysis of offshore marine systems. Results obtained using OrcaFlex, AquaSim software. The authors professionally analyze the capabilities and limitations of the OrcaFlex, AquaSim software when modeling the use of plastic cleaning nets. However, in terms of the substantiation of the task and the description of the results obtained, the article needs to be improved. It is necessary to briefly and clearly formulate in the introduction what caused the need for such work. Why an already operating plastic collection facility needs to be improved and what improvements need to be made. What is the main problem that arises during the operation of this system, which requires the work presented in the article, and what are the features of using nets for garbage collection in the ocean, in contrast to fishing, which require additional engineering developments.

There is a similar remark to the conclusion, where only the results of the engineering calculations performed are analyzed. The idea of the project is ambitious and the article may be interesting for a wide range of audience. If the efficiency of the existing collection system will be improved and a more comprehensible description will be added, it will improve the article and spread out it to all kind of specialists from oceanography and marine ecology.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of article number jmse-2561288. I have information in my files that I read this paper on August 23rd. I take it it has been resubmitted? As I wrote before, I really like this manuscript. I have no comments, both substantive as well as linguistic and editorial. The literature review was done very well. The quality of the drawings is also exemplary. I recommend this paper for publication as it is.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude for your dedicated time and invaluable insights into the review of our paper. Your commitment to the peer-review process is sincerely appreciated, as well as your sincere response to our work.

Sincerely,

Dr Andriarimina Daniel Rakotonirina 

Reviewer 3 Report

The article discusses the calibration of the drag coefficients of a netted screen in OrcaFlex using CFD and full-scale experiments for the digital twin of the ocean cleanup systems. The article is well written and well structured. The presentation of the material is logical. The quality of the drawings is high. A few comments on the article.

1. Abstract should be shortened to 250-300 words.
2. Using a list of lumped references is not very helpful for a reader (for example, ... [13-16] on page 2 or [19-21] on page 3). Assessment/justification should be provided for each reference, even it may be short.
3. Most references in the bibliography have a publication year later than 2014. More recent publications with a publication year of 2018-2023 should be added.
4. I believe that the "Notation and Abbreviations" section of the article is necessary for the convenience of readers.
5. Please indicate the accuracy of the measuring instruments and the uncertainty of the experiments.
6. It is necessary to indicate the boundaries for applying the results of the study.
7. Please formulate the directions for further research on this topic in the "Conclusions" section.

In my opinion this article is interesting and worthy. However, the article has a number of shortcomings. To accept this paper for publication in the JMSE, some improvements and revisions are required as specified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe that the article can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your prompt response. I'm delighted to hear that you believe the article can be accepted for publication. Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated.

Once again, thank you for your support and consideration.

Best regards,

Dr Rakotonirina