Numerical Computation of Hydrodynamic Characteristics of an Automated Hand-Washing System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is written correctly in terms of content and style. The methodology and research subject are adequately presented and described, and the figures included in the work are clear. The paper is suitable for publication in a journal after a thorough language check. I only have one comment concerning the construction of the device. Since the user puts their hands into rotating elements, are they safe, or is there a possibility of damaging even the skin on the hands?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The scientific article "Numerical Computation of Hydrodynamic Characteristics of an Automated Hand-Washing System" is devoted to studying a physical model and investigating the bactericidal effect of an automated hand-washing system. Following are my observations in this regard.

1. What are the limitations of this study? The authors should present the key contribution of this manuscript clearly and illustrate the importance of this study. What about the economic assessment of these systems? Authors should classify, summarize, and discuss the merit and demerit of previous studies.

2. Please discuss how the findings in this work relate to existing studies in this area. What are the limitations of this study? Critical analysis involves answering two questions: what remains unresolved in the analyzed source and why this "something" is still unresolved (what are the objective or subjective reasons for this?). I have not found answers to these questions. The analysis should be critical, i.e. relative to each source (in extreme cases, 2 that are too close in content). The literature is not up-to-date (2016-2023 preferable). Authors should classify, summarize, and discuss the merit and demerit of previous studies.

3. Mesh independency should be proved. What were the criteria for the final grid density? What is the quality of the meshes? Present a GCI study.

4. The reader can not estimate the adequacy of the materials without comparison with experiments.

5. Conclusion section must be rewritten. Focus more on the significance of the findings.

Result and Discussion: After reading this paper, I think that the current results are insufficient to submit to Computation journal. I think that you should analyze further and more thoroughly in Results and Discussion before re-submitting.

Pertaining to these observations, the present manuscript cannot be recommended to be published in this journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented a numerical study on the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of an Automated Hand Washing System.

The idea of the paper is interesting, but the scientific soundness is relatively low.

The main quantitative results are to be mentioned in the abstract.

The introduction is relatively short and may be extended.

The used turbulence model is to be justified.

The boundary conditions are to be expressed mathematically.

A mesh sensitivity test is to be performed.

A validation/verification of the numerical model is to be performed.

What is the convergence criterion?

what is the time step?

What is the interest of presenting Fig 8?

Why is the time limited to 20s?

Is the Washing System, initially full of water?

At which time are presented Figs 4 to 6?

The discussion is to be improved by adding physical interpretations.

Why there are no results related to turbulence variables?

 English level needs to be improved.

 English level needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript presents an investigation on hydrodynamic characteristics of an automated hand-washing system based on numerical computation methods. The topic is interesting, and detailed comments are shown as follows:

1) Quantitative results need to be added to the abstract.

2) Variables should be explained next to the equations.

3) The detailed parameters should be drawn in the figures.

4) The mesh independence simulations should be done.

5) Why the difference presents in the Figure 7? Further explanations should be done.

6) The conclusions should be divided into several parts.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The scientific article "Numerical Computation of Hydrodynamic Characteristics of an Automated Hand-Washing System" is devoted to studying a physical model and investigating the bactericidal effect of an automated hand-washing system. Following are my observations in this regard.

The reader can not estimate the adequacy of the materials without comparison with experiments.

After reading this paper, I think that the current results are sufficient to submit to Computation journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form