Study on Different Parameters of the Self-Excited Oscillation Nozzle for Cavitation Effect under Multiphase Mixed Transport Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
below you can find my comments.
1- The title needs to be changed.it does not explain what you did correctly and it is too general.
2- The language of this manuscript needs to be revised fundamentally, some sentences are vague and in some sentences the verb tenses are not coherent.
3- in line 21, those subscripts are not defined and they add ambiguity to the sentence. since it is the abstract, you must define them in the sentence first.
4- line 48, did you mean jet?
5- The last paragraph of the introduction needs to be revised and improved. It is very vague.
6- define all parameters in a table.
7- In my opinion, this is not a novelty of a model and you have not developed a model. you just calibrated a model with the experimental data you had.
8- Whenever you mention something from a table, you must specify the table number. you cannot just mention the table like what you did in line 407.
Thanks
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Re: Manuscript ID: jmse-1412969
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read comments carefully and corrected it. Based on the opinions of two reviewers, we uploaded the revised manuscript. We made corrections by using the “Track Changes” function. Please see the attachment.
The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.
We would like to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Fujian Zhao
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The title needs to be changed.it does not explain what you did correctly and it is too general.

Response 1: The main content of the study was the influence of geometrical parameters and external parameters on the cavitation performance of the self-oscillating jet nozzle, and the mathematical model of these parameters was obtained. So we developed a new title “Study on Different Parameters of the Self-excited Oscillation Nozzle for Cavitation Effect under Multiphase Mixed Transport Conditions”.
Point 2: The language of this manuscript needs to be revised fundamentally, some sentences are vague and in some sentences the verb tenses are not coherent.
Response 2: Yes, I checked the entire manuscript, and corrected vague sentences and wrong verb tenses. These are marked in the attachment.
Point 3: in line 21, those subscripts are not defined and they add ambiguity to the sentence. since it is the abstract, you must define them in the sentence first.
Response 3: I added the nomenclature section, and every parameter was explained in nomenclature section, but these definitions were still at the back of the abstract. If I add the definitions of these 5 subscripts in abstract, the content will become very long. And if it is necessary, you can replace this sentence into the abstract “the contribution rate of parameters to vapor volume fraction followed the order of CLD(ratio of the self-excited oscillation cavitating jet nozzle cavity length L and the cavity diameter D)>d1(inlet diameter)>Cd21(ratio of outlet diameter to inlet diameter)>CDd2(ratio of cavity diameter D and the self-excited oscillation cavitating jet nozzle outlet diameter d2)>Pin(inlet pressure)”,
or change the sentence with this “the ratio of the self-excited oscillation cavitating jet nozzle cavity length L and the cavity diameter D(CLD) has the largest contribution rate to the vapor volume fraction”. But I think this may not be appropriate.
Point 4: line 48, did you mean jet?
Response 4: Yes, it was a spelling error. I deleted it. (line 57)
Point 5: The last paragraph of the introduction needs to be revised and improved. It is very vague.
Response 5: I revised the last paragraph of the introduction and made the link between this study and this journal at the end of the paragraph.
Point 6: define all parameters in a table.
Response 6: Yes, I added the nomenclature section at the end of the manuscript. (line 510)
Point 7: In my opinion, this is not a novelty of a model and you have not developed a model. you just calibrated a model with the experimental data you had.
Response 7: Many people have studied self-oscillation nozzles and used it for cleaning, but almost no one has studied the relationship between multiple parameters and cavitation effects under submerged conditions, and no one has studied the cavitation effect of multiple mixed flow conditions, so we did this, and we propose to apply it in the field of wastewater treatment. We simulated the cavitation effect of the self-oscillating nozzle, and verified by experiment under submerged conditions, and we summarized the influence of some parameters on the cavitation effect, and finally obtained the mathematical model (the formula about cavitation effect and multiple parameters).
Point 8: Whenever you mention something from a table, you must specify the table number. you cannot just mention the table like what you did in line 407.
Response 8: Yes, I corrected all such errors in this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
v
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Re: Manuscript ID: jmse-1412969
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read comments carefully and corrected it. Based on the opinions of two reviewers, we uploaded the revised manuscript. We made corrections by using the “Track Changes” function. Please see the attachment.
The responses to the reviewer's comments are marked in red and presented following.
We would like to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Fujian Zhao
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Please, check the punctuation.
Response 1: Yes, I checked the entire manuscript and corrected all punctuation errors.
Point 2: Clarify all the terms in the equations also by adding a nomenclature table.
Response 2: Yes, I added a nomenclature section at the end of the manuscript. (line510)
Point 3: What CFD software was used for simulations? Ansys Fluent? Give more details about mesh and geometry.
Response 3: Yes, I used the Ansys Fluent 18.0, the grids were divided by Ansys ICEM, more details were added in the manuscript.
Point 4: CFD is not technology.
Response 4: It's a method, I have corrected it in line 196.
Point 5: What are the results reported in table 3? I understood the results but they were not very clear.
Response 5: Part of the content was blocked when I adjusted the row spacing of the table. Table 3 shows the vapor volume fraction corresponding to different solid particle diameters.
Point 6: Results in table 3 and Figure 5 are consistent?
Response 6: Yes, it will become clear after I adjusted Table 3. The Figure 5 shows the data in Table 3.
Point 7: Table 5 and 6 are the same?
Response 7: Sorry, I made a wrong table when I used the journal template, I corrected it now.
Point 8: What is the header of Table 10 “the parameters of model correspond to coefficients”?
Response 8: They represent the coefficients of each variable parameters (in Eq.9, line 442).
Point 9: Why did you talk about dielectric parameters?
Response 9: Sorry, it was a wrong translation, and the correct content was “different medium parameters”. I corrected it.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the current form of your manuscript is good for publication now.
Regards,
Reviewer
