Application of Theoretical and Experimental Findings for Optimization of Mixing Processes and Equipment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript concludes the previous work about the mixing equipment. However, the authors are careless in writing and using gramma, so there are a lot of errors in this manuscript. The manuscript has to be revised very carefully. Otherwise, the manuscript should be rejected.

1. The words in the abstract should be rewritten in a more regious way. Gramma errors are inexcusable.

2. There are too many keywords.

3. In line 34, 'Mixing equipment' should be replaced with 'Mixing equipments'. There are also other places in the manuscript where the word should be corrected if the authors want to refer to different devices.

4. In line 38, 'is shown that ...' should be replaced with 'it is shown that ...'.

5. In line 39,'a solid liquid suspensions' should be replaced with 'solid-liquid suspensions'.

6. In both abstract and introduction, 'the character of the flow' should be explained. At least, the authors should list the characters.

7. In line 62, 'axial, radial or tangential character of the flow' should be explained. If the authers want to say that there is axial, radial or tangential flow, there is no need to add character. The authers should not misuse the 'charactor'.

8. In line 64, there should be a comma between the 'vessel' and the 'are'.

9. In line 68, the authors should explain what is the improvement and why it is significant. If it is an improvement, what the original case is and there should be reference.

10. In Figure 1, there is no explaination about the lines. Are they stream lines or path lines? Do they represent the flow of the liquid or the solid? How are the results obtained? From CFD? The software or codes?

11. There are so many 'resp.' in the paper. It makes the manuscript less rigorous and must be corrected.

12. It is unnecessary to combine the equations if they are different.

13. Equations (1,2) are the same.

14. It would be better if the authors could use another symble of the vector to make the words in alignment.

15. In Figure 3, the labels should not be covered by curves. So the postions of the axis should be adjusted.

16. It would be better to use different lables for different figures. There is no need to use one label to refer to several figures. For example, in Figure 4, label (a) represents two figures.

17. There are gramma errors in line 119.

18. Sentences in line 123 and 124 are hardly to be understood. It seems the authors missed a lot of words at the last of the sentence.

19. In Equation (11), 'konst' should be replaced with 'const'.

20. In line 138, the authors use the word 'pump power'. Can we add the power with the flow rate?

21. All variables in the text should be italic.

22. In line 140 and 141, there is gramma error.

23. Equation 17 shoud be rewritten.

24. There is no explaination of Figure 16. The contours are unclear to readers. Do they represent the pressure or the velocity? The relative velocity or the absolute velocity? The legend?

25. What is the criteria of the bending or inclining? Using flow angles or blade loading?

26. The authors should explain why the angle is 45° in line 166.

27. There is gramma error in line 175.

28. Throughout the paper, there is no explaination what is the pumping efficiency? The authors should not make up words without explaination.

29. In Table 1, there is no explaination of the names of impellers.

30. The authors use '÷' to represent 'from ... to ...'. It should be changed.

31. There is gramma error in line 251.

32. There is no explaination or details about the red bar in Figure 8.

33. There is spelling error in Table 4.

34. The authors use different ways of citing tables in the manuscript. For example, in line 275, the authors use 'Tab 5'.

35. There is no explaination of 'homogenization efficiency'.

36. The authors should check whether the expression of the function in Equations (25), (26), (27), and (28) are the same. If they are not, different symbles for function should be used.

37. There are gramma errors in line 339, 359, 368, 512, and 583.

38. The symble for the 'decimal point' should be same throughout the manuscript. Different symbles should be corrected.

39. Fonts in figures should be the same throughout the manuscript.

40. Labels in Figure 18 are unclear.

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has reviewed the optimal parameters and configurations of agitator for operating the it efficiently.  A lot of parameters are reviewed and discussed.  In my opinion, the paper should be published after minor revision.  The reviewer would like the authors to consider the following issues.

 

• In abstract, a grammatical error is found, i.e., “characteristic” should be corrected to “characteristics” on line 22.

 

• A lot of strange symbols are seen in the equations. The authors should explain these symbols.

 

• Expressions of Eqs. (1, 2), (3, 4) (5, 6) … are strange for the reviewer.

 

• What are the color maps in Fig. 5? Velocity maps or the others? The scale of color should be needed.

 

• It is hard for the reviewer to distinguish the photographs in Fig. 19. The detailed explanation is needed.

 

• A lot of grammatical errors and awkward expressions are seen in the sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx