Compositional Analysis and Numerical Simulation of Slagging Process on a Water-Cooled Wall of an MSW Incinerator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be accepted with minor revision, regarding mainly the quality of the images.
The introduction clearly explains the aim of the work and it is well supported by many references.
The section “material and methods” can be improved:
Figure 1: please add a scale of the image;
Figure 2: Improve the quality of the images; the resolution is very poor and SEM parameters, like magnification, can’t be read.
Figure 3: please change the name of the axes in English, or rather, change the figure with a table showing the quantification of the mineralogical phases.
Table 1: Reorganize the table by placing the phases in bold in the first column and the values ​​obtained by XRF in the second column, in normal font.
In the section “Numerical simulation method” the calculation model and its parameters are exposed.
Figure 4: please increase the resolution of the figure and add a scale of the figure.
Section “Results and analysis”
In this section are discussed carefully the results of the numerical model, like temperature distribution and velocity field, the adhesion of the particles on the wall surface, the influence of particle size on the adhesion.
Figure 5 and figure 6: please improve the resolution; add some explanation in the captions.
Figure 7: correct the label into “simulated temperature”.
Figure 8 and 9: improve the resolution and quality of the figure.
Figure 11: please reduce the dimension of the font inside the graphic, because the text is outside of the edge of the figure.
Conclusions:
The conclusions are consistent with the discussion of the results. I suggest to the author to highlight which are, according to their experience, the most important parameters and to propose some solutions, based on their analysis, to reduce the slagging rate.
Author Response
Comments 1: Figure 1: please add a scale of the image;
Response 1: The scale of the image has been added.
Comments 2: Figure 2: Improve the quality of the images; the resolution is very poor and SEM parameters, like magnification, can’t be read.
Response 2: The quality of the image has been modified.
Comments 3: Figure 3: please change the name of the axes in English, or rather, change the figure with a table showing the quantification of the mineralogical phases.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. The name of the axis has been changed to English
Comments 4: Table 1: Reorganize the table by placing the phases in bold in the first column and the values ​​obtained by XRF in the second column, in normal font.
Response 4: The table has been modified.
Comments 5: Figure 4: please increase the resolution of the figure and add a scale of the figure.
Response 5: The resolution of the graphic has been modified and the scale of the graphic has been added.
Comments 6: Figure 5 and figure 6: please improve the resolution; add some explanation in the captions.
Response 6: The resolution of the image has been modified and explanations have been added (L237-L242).
Comments 7: Figure 7: correct the label into “simulated temperature”.
Response 7: Thank you for your reminder. Figure 7 has been modified.
Comments 8: Figure 8 and 9: improve the resolution and quality of the figure.
Response 8: The resolution of Figures 8 and 9 have been modified.
Comments 9: Figure 11: please reduce the dimension of the font inside the graphic, because the text is outside of the edge of the figure.
Response 9: Thank you for your reminder. Figure 11 has been modified.
Comments 10: The conclusions are consistent with the discussion of the results. I suggest to the author to highlight which are, according to their experience, the most important parameters and to propose some solutions, based on their analysis, to reduce the slagging rate.
Response 10: Thank you for your suggestion. The conclusion has been supplemented.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsImportant research topics have been presented, but the article requires improvement, especially in terms of the appropriate resolution and readability of the attached graphics. Details in the attached manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments 1: Figure 2: The descriptions are illegible.
Response 1: The quality of the image has been modified.
Comments 2: Figure 3: The chinese description should be replaced by english ones.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. The name of the axis has been changed to English.
Comments 3: Figure 3: More details in caption is recommended.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, the caption has been modified.
Comments 4: Figure 4: Better resolution required
Response 4: The resolution of Figure 4 has been modified.
Comments 5: Figure 4: Calculation model of...what
Response 5: Calculation model of the incinerator.
Comments 6: Figure 5 and figure 6: Better resolution required, and more details in caption is recommended.
Response 6: The resolutions of Figure 5 and Figure 6 have been modified. The captions of Figure 5 and Figure 6 have been modified.
Comments 7: Figure 7: Better symbol variability required.
Response 7: Thank you for your reminder. Figure 7 has been modified.
Comments 8: Figure 8 and 9: Better resolution required.
Response 8: The resolution of Figures 8 and 9 have been modified.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenerally, I agree to accept this journal in its current format after minor English editing and checking the journal's format consistency.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English is required.
Author Response
Comments 1: Minor editing of English is required.
Response 1: The English of the paper has been revised by the Language Editing Services.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
