Study on the Hydrodynamic Performance of a Countercurrent Total Spray Tray under Sloshing Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The publication showed about 27% Similarity Index. The authors can revise the text in the manuscript.
Author Response
We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to comments and suggestions, as described in the authors' response.
First, I have completed my English editing through the MDPI paid editing service.
Secondly，we have made revisions according to comments and suggestions.
The modification result is shown in the file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to comments and suggestions, as described in the authors' response.
First, I have completed my English editing through the MDPI paid editing service.
Secondly，we have made revisions according to comments and suggestions.
The modification result is shown in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General comment:
This manuscript performs experimental study on the performance of the TST, which was proposed previously, on restricting the effect of sloshing motions. Experimental results and knowledge are valuable to the design optimization of tower equipment on offshore platforms. However, it is required to discuss more regarding the engineering evaluations and applications from the current experimental analyses. In addition, the readability of the paper should be improved by adding some necessary tables and correcting the English & format errors. The specific comments are given below:
Specific comments:
1. In the second paragraph “Cheng et al.[20] studied the hydrodynamic performance…”, it should be noted that the author of Ref 20 is not Cheng. And only one author is presented in Ref 20 (not et al.). Please carefully check the contents and formats of references and citations before submitting the manuscript.
2. In the second paragraph “Cheng et al.[20] studied the hydrodynamic performance…”, what are the full expressions of LBJ and DLJ? Same question for PPR in section 2.2. Please provide the full expressions when the abbreviations appear for the first time in the article.
3. In the second paragraph “Tang's team[25-31] conducted an experimental study on the packing column…”, there is no author called Tang in Refs 25-31. Again, please carefully check the contents and formats of every reference and citation before submitting the manuscript.
4. In the last paragraph of Section 1, “To solve the bottleneck that …under sloshing conditions.” is not a complete sentence. Please carefully check the English grammar in the manuscript for the revision.
5. The number of Sections 2-4 are all noted as 1 in the manuscript. Please correct this format error.
6. In the Section 2.2, “At the same time, Mobil presented …of my country.” The logical connective “At the same time” is inappropriate in this paragraph. In addition, does “my country” mean “China”? For publishing an international journal paper, it is better to specify the country name instead of “my/our country”.
7. In Section 2, it would be better to provide a table listing and summarizing all the experimental parameters and conditions that the authors considered for the better readability of the readers.
8. Fig.4 is not cited in the texts. Please cite it in the appropriate area of the texts.
9. In the Section of “results and discussion”, it is better to briefly explain the meanings of the key physical quantities for this paper. Just like what the authors did in their previous paper: Tao et al., Hydrodynamic Characteristics in the Counter-Flow Total Spray Tray. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201800058.
10. In the Section of “results and discussion”, there are many mistakes on the units of physical quantities (e.g. F0 is not a dimensionless quantities; it is “Pa” for pressure but not “pa”). Please carefully check the units to ensure the rigor of paper.
11. In the Section of “results and discussion”, the authors discuss the discrepancy between static cases and sloshing cases. It is recommended to summarize and highlight the experimental results in one or several tables for the better readability.
12. In Section 3.1.1, “The change of dry plate pressure drop … sloshing period of 8s and F0= 15”, why the sloshing period of 8s (or 8~20s) is considered as important scale of sloshing for the actual engineering applications? How the authors determined the sloshing time scale for the evaluation of sloshing effect?
13. For Fig.5, it is better to keep the same scale of y axis for (a) and (b) for the clearer comparison. In addition, it is recommended to provide the common experimental conditions for each figure in the captions.
14. In the second paragraph of Section 3.1.1, the authors mentioned “It can be seen from the figure that when the sloshing angle is 0° – 4°…compared with the static state”. But the reviewer thinks that from Fig.5(a), the increment of pressure drop from 2° to 3° is also very obvious, which is comparable to that from 4° to 5°. Can the authors discuss the reasons and evaluate the effect of sloshing angle more detailly?
15. In the second paragraph of Section 3.1.2, why do the authors study the effect of F0 from 6 ~13 (m/s)(kg/m3)0.5, which is different to the conditions of that in the dry plate?
16. In Fig.6(b), why do the authors compare the results of sloshing angle at 4°, but not at 7° as Fig.5(b) did?
17. In Fig.7(b), it will be clearer and more rigor to keep the legend following the increment of slosh angle. That is, blank point-line for static, red point-line for slosh angle 4°, blue point-line for slosh angle 7°.
18. In Section 3, the authors analyze and discuss the experimental data and results in detail. However, it is also necessary to discuss how the current experimental results regarding the effects of sloshing on different key parameters benefit the engineering evaluations and applications.
19. To verify the good performance of the TST on resisting the effect of sloshing motions, the authors should discuss and compare the results and performances of new TST and the other types of trays.
20. In the second paragraph of the Section of “conclusion”, the authors wrote “When the sloshing angle does not exceed 4 °, the fluctuation is smaller than that in the static state’. But in the static state, no fluctuation is found.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to comments and suggestions, as described in the authors' response.
First, I have completed my English editing through the MDPI paid editing service.
Secondly，we have made revisions according to comments and suggestions.
The modification result is shown in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is interesting, but there are several remarks. They are inserted in the text of the article. After elimination of these remarks, the article can be viewed again for the final decision on the possibility of publication in this journal. Need major revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to comments and suggestions, as described in the authors' response.
First, I have completed my English editing through the MDPI paid editing service.
Secondly，we have made revisions according to comments and suggestions.
The modification result is shown in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my suggestions and after reading the other reviewers' reports and the authors' answers, I have no further observations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to comments and suggestions, as described in the authors' response.
The modification result is shown in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to comments and suggestions, as described in the authors' response.
The modification result is shown in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
For author
Additional experiments needed especially validation.
need major revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made revisions according to comments and suggestions, as described in the authors' response.
The modification result is shown in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
A good journal/high quality journal, Scopus q2 requires validation results from previous researchers. Please add an image validating the research results. Need major revision
Author Response
尊敬的审稿人
我们非常感谢您的意见和建议。这些意见和建议很有价值，对修改和完善我们的稿件很有帮助。如作者的答复所述，我们已根据意见和建议进行了修改。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 4
Reviewer 4 Report
Please add 1 figure validation with other research result.
I can change to minor revision
