Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reliability of Different Nanofluids and Different Microchannel Configurations on the Heat Transfer Augmentation:

 

·       At the end of the abstract, it is mentioned that the pressure drop increases with higher hydraulic diameter; also, in discussing Fig 13. This is wrong.

·       Check the figure 6 caption.

·       Could you have validation for a nanofluid?

·       All heat transfer coefficient values are exaggerated for a laminar flow. Either post-process calculation is wrong, or data is obtained from CFD.

 

·       Massive discussion for results is required.

 

Author Response

Please check the reponse on the uploaded file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

accept

Author Response

Please check the response on the uploaded file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting but some revision must be done:

1-Please add a section about numerical model

2-Please add the grid  study

3-Please add residual errors

4-Which parameter is equal in different MCHS? Hydraulic diameter must be equal NOT another parameters. Please check and represent your data with equal hydraulic diameter.

5-The nanofluids thermal properties formula are very old. Please check one of results with new formula such as: A different look at the effect of temperature on the nanofluids thermal conductivity: focus on the experimental-based models

and Statistical study and a complete overview of nanofluid viscosity correlations: a new look

6- Please correct the typos errors 

Author Response

Please check the response on the uploaded file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed the comments.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Accepted