A CFD Investigation on the Aerosol Drug Delivery in the Mouth–Throat Airway Using a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler Device

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s Report

 Journal Name: Processes

Manuscript Number: processes-1754930

Manuscript Title: A CFD investigation on the aerosol drug delivery in the mouth-throat airway using a pressurized metered-dose inhaler device

This study investigates flow along a 90^o-bend inhaler geometry to understand the flow features together with drug deposition characteristics, while it is in use. Overall, the paper is well-written and –organized; however, the points below need to be addressed.

 Comments:

1-  The text of the manuscript needs careful editing and the language level must be improved.

An example of a typo “…but these adopted 283 turbulence models especially the k-ѡ model generally…” Page 11, line 284.

2-      Please emphasize the novelty of your study.

3-     I think the fluid in the study is considered Newtonian, why? In multiphase flow, the non-Newtonian effects can also be seen?

Non-newtonian approaches can be reviewed in the papers below:

 

doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2018.07.002

doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123896

4-      The continuum approach is taken into account? Is continuum really valid under the working conditions?

5- Discuss the difference between your study and the studies, which simulate instantaneous particle locations.

Here are some paper suggestions:

 

doi.org/10.1002/elps.202000310

doi.org/10.1002/fld.5057

doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111172

 

6-      Why is there no data for spray cone angle 20^o in Table 1?

7-      Why did you use the Rosin-Rammler particle distribution model?

8-      In Fig.2, please indicate the real/experimentally-measured velocity distribution.

9-      Could you please discuss the effect of the vortex on the bend on particle distribution?

 

10-  Please discuss the fluid characteristics for different cone angles.

Author Response

We would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to the reviewer for providing valuable input. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, and responses to the reviewer’s comments can be found in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 The topic submitted is novel and adds significant research data to the existing field of research in aerosols. The article is not very well articulated and needs English language revisions and even formatting of the manuscript as per the MDPI guidelines. The manuscript needs to be checked for statistical significance, especially in fig 3,4,5,10. The introduction needs to be concise. Abstract and conclusion should include a sentence proposing the future direction of the present research. Also the commercial aspects of how pharma industries and clinicians can benefit.  Most of the methodology lacks citing the references from where the technique was adopted and used to conduct the study. 

Author Response

We would like to extend our thanks and gratitude to the reviewer for providing valuable input. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, and responses to the reviewer’s comments can be found in the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The current form of the manuscript can be accepted for publication