Feasibility Study on Automation of Zinc Ash Skimming Process in Batch Galvanising
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents the feasibility study on automation of Zinc Ash skimming process in batch galvanising, which is a good topic of research, however, the manuscript needs the following revisions:
(i) The manuscript fails to highlight the significance of the work and the abstract provides a vague representation of the work. It should provide the accurate technical detail and significance of the work clearly in the abstract
(ii) The introduction section does not shed light to the existing works, which is needed to see the significance of the work.
(iii) The design process should provide the proper details of the component utilized, which are missing.
(iv) What is the programmable KUKA robot arm and how it works for the skimming process.
(v) The methodology of the two process for skimming process can be improved by adding flowchart for the describing the difference of their individual process.
(vi) The conclusion and reference section can also be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your revision and helpful comments. Please see the attachment fo our response.
With best regards
Jana Pöpperlová
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to Author
The article “Feasibility Study on Automation of Zinc Ash Skimming Process in Batch Galvanising” is very interesting and valuable for industrial sector as well. The presentation of the design will be helpful for researchers and industrialists as well. However, in order to improve the article, the authors should address the following comments.
Minor Revision
Abstract:
The abstract is very general with respect to the requirement of a research article. Authors should provide the key features clearly in the design and the removal efficiency of the device. Some of the required changes are given below.
Line 15,16: Automatic separation and 15
skimming systems, which are suitable for this aim were identified from various applications.
1. Authors should mention the key applications and finding.
Line 19: The desired comprehensive removal of zinc ash..
2. Authors should provide the minimum zinc removal quantity they achieved.
Line 22: a fully automated combination of zinc ash skimming, and extraction system was achieved on a laboratory scale.
3. Authors should provide the key feature of the system.
4. Authors should provide diverse key words to reflect the theme of the article.
Introduction
Line 33: the zinc ash is currently removed manually.
5. Authors should provide more evidences here as it generates the novelty of their work.
Line 40,41: The Permanent Senate Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chem-ical Compounds in the Work Area of the German Research Foundation (DFG)
6. Authors should recheck the article grammatically and avoid using capitalizing words in the middle of the sentence.
Line 44,45: Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (IFA) of the German Social Accident In- surance (DGUV) documented sector-specific exposure data
7. The authors are discussing the process with reference to Germany, they should consult the literature thoroughly to check the probability of other suitable alternate of zinc ash removal all over the world specifically in other developed countries just to provide a better review of literature.
Materials and Methods:
8. Authors should provide the failure mode of automated system, if observed any, to open up the future research area in the field.
Conclusion
9. Authors should provide the clear quantitative values by the automated system of ash removal as compared to manual removal.
References:
10. Authors should improve the recent citations in the article according to the Journal’s guide line.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your revision and helpful comments. Please see the attachment fo our response.
With best regards
Jana Pöpperlová
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript shortfall in the following aspects:
1- The article is well-written and easy to read; however, some minor grammatical errors were observed without compromising the text as a whole.
2- It should clearly state the key novelty point of your work in the abstract section.
3- The abstract section is academically unacceptable. The abstract section should contain the objective, methods, results, and conclusions, with emphasis on the results and conclusions. It is too wordy.
4- Please use more quantity results in the abstract section
5- Keywords must be increased.
6- The introduction section is written very poorly. In this section, the previous investigation related to the current study must be mentioned and explained.
7- In general, the results section is weak and insufficient in terms of academic manner. The authors should present more detail with novel achievements to better draw readers' attention.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your revision and helpful comments. Please see the attachment fo our response.
With best regards
Jana Pöpperlová
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version looks good. The section 1 can be renamed as "Introduction" instead of ''Motivation", as Introduction is normally common in manuscript. At the end of the section 1, the contribution of the work can be listed for easier visibility.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your comments. The first chapter has been renamed back to "Introduction". Also the contribution of the study has been added.
Best regards
Jana Pöpperlová
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your acceptation.
Best regards
Jana Pöpperlová
