Effects of Operating Parameters on the Cut Size of Turbo Air Classifier for Particle Size Classification of SAC305 Lead-Free Solder Powder
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Line 16: the authors wrote that “the feed rate is less significant”. I believe that a process parameters is significant or not significant depending from p-value. Thus, in this case, the feed rate is significant but with a weak effect respect to the rotor speed and air inlet velocity effects.
2. Line 70: the authors reports that, using DOE, a smaller number of experiments could be done for diminishing the experimental efforts. But in their case, they design a full factorial plan and thus the previous consideration is not suitable.
3. Line 93: “each” experimental run not “every”.
4. Line 135: 23 not 23 as written.
5. The authors should clarify how were set the operating parameters levels. In which way did the authors selected the three parameters for statistical analysis? Are there other fixed parameters?
6. In the design of experiments, the centre point is an experimental run with the all of the continuous factor settings set halfway between the low level and the high level. Centre point evidences if the linear assumption that it is used for a 2-level design is true. Why didn’t the authors introduced this point?
7. Were the experimental runs randomized? And the replication? From Table 3 I don’t’ think so.
8. I suggest to use RPM instead of r/min.
9. How is the target for the cut size? Maximization, minimization or a chosen value?
10. Fig. 3 is redundant because the information about parameters statistical relevance is included in the table 5 in the P-value. Furthermore, the authors should specify that the parameters are significant if their P value is less than alfa value.
11. Line 219-220: fair inlet velocity is “C” not “B” and feed rate is “B” and not “C”.
12. Line 232: “C” instead of “B” regarding parameters interaction.
13. The authors are invited to specify better in which way they choose the third level for parameters and how was carried out the optimization by DOE methodology? Because I can’t find any information about them.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS
Journal: Processes
Type of manuscript: Article
Manuscript ID: processes-520991
Title: Effect of operating parameters on the cut size of turbo air classifier for particle-size classification of SAC305 lead-free solder powder
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed point by point. Please kindly find attachment. (Responds to Reviewer 1)
The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We are look forward to hearing a positive response from you.
Best regards,
Somjai Janudom, D.Eng.
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Prince of Songkla University
Hat Yai, 90112, Thailand
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall the paper is good and very well written. The experimental design is appropriate and conclusions are well supported by the results. However, some amendments must be made adequately before it can be accepted for publication.
1. Instead of Table 1, please graphically represent the particle size distribution by plotting size versus cumulative percentage (just like Fig.9). That is the most useful and contemporary method to depict the size ranges. The comprehension is easy as well.
2. Line 101; instead of “in our laboratory” it is advised to write, “in the laboratory of XXX University”
3. Fig. 2 seems to be adopted form a reference. Please seek appropriate permissions for reuse, if so.
4. EDS results needs further description. Any elements were subtracted from the analysis? Why the colored images are not used?
5. Conclusions must be rewritten. Currently, the results are duplicated. Please include limitations, prospects, challenges, and applicability. Further, recommendations for improvement or future work should be pointed out as well.
6. A very serious concern is that the paper exhibits 21% similarity with the previously published papers. I have appended the similarity report. Please check and revise the paper thoroughly.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS
Journal: Processes
Type of manuscript: Article
Manuscript ID: processes-520991
Title: Effect of operating parameters on the cut size of turbo air classifier for particle-siz classification of SAC305 lead-free solder powder
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed point by point. Please kindly find attachment. (Responds to Reviewer 2)
The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We are look forward to hearing a positive response from you.
Best regards,
Somjai Janudom, D.Eng.
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Prince of Songkla University
Hat Yai, 90112, Thailand
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the authors for the answers.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS
Reviewer 1 (Round 2)
Journal: Processes
Type of Manuscript: Article
Manuscript ID: processes-520991
Title: Effect of operating parameters on the cut size of turbo air classifier for particle-size classification of SAC305 lead-free solder powder
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on our manuscript. As suggested by reviewer 1 (round 1), the authors have revised completely. Therefore, for round 2, we did not receive comments and suggestions from reviewer 1.
We are looking forward to hearing a positive response from you.
Best regards,
Somjai Janudom, D.Eng.
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Prince of Songkla University
Hat Yai, 90112, Thailand
Reviewer 2 Report
The issues raised in first review round remain unaddressed. Paper has been revised but the major comments regarding Conclusions and similarity are still need to be properly handled.
Also, more relevant and recent papers from MDPI journals must be cited in the Introduction.
Please, go through the the comments of first review round again and revise the paper accordingly.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS
Responds to Reviewer 2 (Round 2)
Journal: Processes
Type of Manuscript: Article
Manuscript ID: processes-520991
Title: Effect of operating parameters on the cut size of turbo air classifier for particle-size classification of SAC305 lead-free solder powder
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed point by point. Please kindly find attachment.
The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We are looking forward to hearing a positive response from you.
Best regards,
Somjai Janudom, D.Eng.
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Prince of Songkla University
Hat Yai, 90112, Thailand
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
