Study on Cavitation of Port Plate of Seawater Desalination Pump with Energy Recovery Function

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has some problems, as follows：

1. The paper needs to increase the number of citations of the literature.

2. What is the meshing software used in this paper?

3. The mesh near the wall needs to be refined.

4. The simulation in this paper requires mesh dependency test on the grid.

5. The basic settings of simulation part should be described in detail in this paper.

6. There is a lack of error analysis in the experimental part.

7. How to determine the accuracy of the simulation results and experimental result in this paper？

8. The paper needs to be add Nomenclature.

9. The format of the paper is not uniform, the font of the paper is also not uniform, and there are many language problems, which greatly affect the reading experience.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript investigated the performance of a multi-action internal curve desalination pump with the CFD method. CFD calculation results are compared with the mass flow coefficient method and the experimental test. Results can be used to obtain the optimal operating point and assist in designing, which has certain academic research and practical engineering value.

I consider the content of this manuscript will meet the reading interests of the readers of the journal. However, there are certain English spelling and grammar issues, and also the discussion and explanation should be further improved. Therefore, I suggest giving a major revision and the authors need to clarify some issues or supply more validation data to enrich the content.

The detailed comments can be found in the PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author answered all questions and recommends acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have scrutinized the authors' revised manuscript and checked peer-to-peer responses. I think the author has fully respected the reviewers' opinions and made corresponding revisions and improvements to the paper. The current edition meets publication standards, so I am not suggesting any revisions.