Next Article in Journal
Research on Coupling Adsorption Experiments for Wall–Climbing Robots in Coal Mine Shafts
Next Article in Special Issue
Numerical Investigation of the Electro-Thermo Convection in an Inclined Cavity Filled with a Dielectric Fluid
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Two Lab Simulation Methods of Multiple Heavy Metal Contamination on FCC Catalysts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Experimental Investigation and CFD Simulation of Cryogenic Condenser
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Al2O3, SiO2, and ZnO Nanoparticle Concentrations Mixed with EG–Water on the Heat Transfer Characteristics through a Microchannel

Processes 2023, 11(7), 2015; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11072015
by Ibrahim Elbadawy *, Fatemah Alali, Javad Farrokhi Derakhshandeh, Ali Dinc, Mohamed Abouelela and Wael Al-Kouz *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 4:
Reviewer 5:
Processes 2023, 11(7), 2015; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11072015
Submission received: 8 June 2023 / Revised: 26 June 2023 / Accepted: 30 June 2023 / Published: 5 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow (2023))

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer's Comments (Major Revision):

1- Why the same relationships have not been used to calculate the properties of different nanofluids. It seems that Brownian motion effect have been considered for ZnO nanoparticles, while this effect has not been considered for Al2O3, SiO2 nanoparticles.

2- The details of the numerical calculations should be added to the paper (Numerical solution method, Method accuracy, Convergence criterion).

3- Have the authors developed a homemade code or used a software to solve the governing equations.

4- Show the grid used inside the computational domain.

5- Please describe the streamlines by providing suitable figures.

6- Some writing mistakes are observed and the author should read the paper again and correct them.

7- The manuscript can be improved by addressing the following paper:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2023.170354,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2019.104411

-

Author Response

Your invaluable feedback and the time you dedicated are deeply appreciated.

In response to your comments, please find the authors' collective response in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Check the attachment 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

It can be improved.

Author Response

Your invaluable feedback and the time you dedicated are deeply appreciated.

In response to your comments, please find the authors' collective response in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

My suggestion is a major revision.
1- I think the abstract is too long.
2- The references given in the introduction are very few. The introduction should be enriched with much newer references.
3- Describe exactly the novelty aspect of your research.
4- The results should be examined at other temperatures (other than 288 K).
5- The synergistic effect of adding Al2O3, SiO2, and ZnO to the fluid should be discussed more deeply.
6- What is the advantage of your research compared to similar research?
7- Be sure to compare your research with similar articles in the table.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Your invaluable feedback and the time you dedicated are deeply appreciated.

In response to your comments, please find the authors' collective response in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

·             What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic.

·             - What are the limitations of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic.

·             Is it possible to show the steps of the work in terms of a flowchart?

·             What the authors have done for the validation/verification of their work/

·             The abstract should be supported by data and numbers from the main obtained results.

·             One-inline-text about the validation should be mentioned at the end of the abstract.

·             The conclusion was not formulated in a proper way where the author talks about the main objective and methodology mostly, and this is not the way the conclusion would be formulated. The conclusion of the current paper must be rewritten in such a way that the conclusion stats with a brief description about the main objective and methodology, and then, the main conclusion points obtained from the results should be mentioned in detail within the text supported by numbers and data.

·             Improve the introduction. Include additional references that are current (less than 5 years old) there are 0 of 9 references that are less than 5 years old

Using of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to predict the thermal conductivity of zinc oxide–silver (50%–50%)/water hybrid Newtonian nanofluid A comprehensive experimental investigation of thermal conductivity of a ternary hybrid nanofluid containing MWCNTs-titania-zinc oxide/water-ethylene glycol (80: 20) as well  Two-phase investigation of water-Al2O3 nanofluid in a micro concentric annulus under non-uniform heat flux boundary conditionsThermal performance improvement in water nanofluid/GNP–SDBS in novel design of double-layer microchannel heat sink with sinusoidal cavities and rectangular ribs

·             Generally, the whole abstract should be reformulated.

·             What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic.

·             - What are the limitations of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic.

·             Is it possible to show the steps of the work in terms of a flowchart?

·             What the authors have done for the validation/verification of their work/

·             The abstract should be supported by data and numbers from the main obtained results.

·             One-inline-text about the validation should be mentioned at the end of the abstract.

·             The conclusion was not formulated in a proper way where the author talks about the main objective and methodology mostly, and this is not the way the conclusion would be formulated. The conclusion of the current paper must be rewritten in such a way that the conclusion stats with a brief description about the main objective and methodology, and then, the main conclusion points obtained from the results should be mentioned in detail within the text supported by numbers and data.

·             Generally, the whole abstract should be reformulated.

Author Response

Your invaluable feedback and the time you dedicated are deeply appreciated.

In response to your comments, please find the authors' collective response in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Please find my comments attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Your invaluable feedback and the time you dedicated are deeply appreciated.

In response to your comments, please find the authors' collective response in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

-

-

Reviewer 3 Report

accept

Minor editing of English language required

Back to TopTop