Next Article in Journal
Surface Physical and Chemical Modification of Pure Iron by Using Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Determining the Damage and Failure Behaviour of Textile Reinforced Composites under Combined In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Loading
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 13
Issue 21
10.3390/ma13214774
Review Report
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Effect of Temperature and Humidity on the Filtration Performance of Electret Melt-Blown Nonwovens

Materials 2020, 13(21), 4774; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13214774
by Chao Liu 1,2,*, Zijian Dai 1, Bin He 2 and Qin-Fei Ke 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Materials 2020, 13(21), 4774; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13214774
Submission received: 6 October 2020 / Revised: 23 October 2020 / Accepted: 23 October 2020 / Published: 26 October 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Figure 4, page 5:

  • it is not visible where the pneumatic cylinder is located. What is the function of a pneumatic cylinder?
  • the Upstream photometer shown in the figure is not explained in the text.
  • explain the upstream photometer function in the text. Explain how to measure electrostatic potential characterized by a non-contacting voltmeter.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

  Thanks for reviewing our manuscript entitled “Effect of Temperature and Humidity on the Filtration Performance of Electret Melt-blown Nonwovens” (ID: 973722) and giving such positive view. We also thank the reviewers for all valuable comments and we believe they are helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have gone over the comments, fully addressed the concerns of the reviewers and made a point-by-point response to the comments. Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a rightly written paper. It is interesting for readers although it does not bring any scientific breakthrough. I appreciate thoroughly described theory, experiments, device and the scheme of experiments. The paper is significnt for utilization of electret filters. 

In the line 26, I would prefer to express the ar velocity in M/s instead of  L/min.

In the Chapter 3.3. you use the terms "Filtration Performance" and "filtration efficiency". These terms seem to be used for the same phenomenon which may be mesleading for the reader. I literature, the term FE is more common.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: In the line 26, I would prefer to express the air velocity in M/s instead of  L/min.

Response 1:  As suggested by the reviewer, the air flow rate of 32 and 85 L/min have been converted into 5.33 and 14.16 cm/s in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 2: In the Chapter 3.3. you use the terms "Filtration Performance" and "filtration efficiency". These terms seem to be used for the same phenomenon which may be mesleading for the reader. I literature, the term FE is more common.

Response 2: Generally,  "filtration efficiency" and "pressure drop" are two values which can be used to evaluated the overall performance of filters in air filtration. In this case, we expect "filtration performance" can be used to describe both of  "filtration efficiency" and "pressure drop" of the filters against aerosols.

Back to TopTop