Optimization of the Uniformity Index Performance in the Selective Catalytic Reduction System Using a Metamodel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript “Optimization of the Uniformity Index(UI) performance in the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System using the metamodel” has investigated the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System and improved the performance of the SCR System through an optimization method using a metamodel. However, the manuscript has some defect. Thus, I suggest that the paper be major revision. The following hints may help the authors：
Q1: The writing and grammar should be extensively improved. The current version of the manuscript is hard to read because it is very poorly written. I encourage the authors to work with an English speaker in order to improve the readability of the text, especially tenses. Many grammatical errors were found. For example:
“The power of impulse turbines was improved by 5.33% and the analysis cost was reduced using the OASIS optimization tool [12]. The metamodel consists of algorithms that are…”
Q2: In paper, please avoid the lump literature, such as [2-6],[2-6,8] and so on, summarize the main contribution of each references paper in separate sentences. The reference style should be checked again according to the journal standard.
Q3: In the introduction, the advantage of metamodel should be exlained.
Q4: In the introduction, the carbon load estimation of should be introduced, which has demonstrated the necessity of the study. The author should not only provide a narrative of the results, but also have their own evaluation. Otherwise, the innovation of the paper and the necessity of research will not be perfectly displayed. In addition, some references should be added such as Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2023, 271:127025ï¼›Environmental Science and Pollution Research volume 2023,30, 39338–39376.
Q5: Experimental setup and procedure: The authors should performed a valid comparison of the model with the experiment.
Q6: In general，the conclusion is not well organized. The results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for the real applications.
Q7: Could you rewrite the abstract to be more focused on the main goal and the key obtained findings?
Q8: In the paper, more cases should be explained.
Q9: The independence of the grid should be promoted in the paper.
Q10: There are a lot of abbreviations in the article, and the full names are not indicated. It is necessary for the author to add a nomenclature at the beginning or end of the article. Avoid using abbreviations in the Title, Abstract and Conclusions, if possible.
Please see the Comments and Suggestions for Authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The results of this study can be interesting and useful for other researchers in this field. Publication of the paper in the Sustainability journal is recommended after a minor revision according to the following comments:
1. Conclusion is too long. It is better to be shortened (maximum three paragraphs). Also, the [22] reference should be removed from the "Conclusions" section.
2. A few typing errors need to be corrected. For example: Page 3, 2.2. Formulation of optimization, "… SCR System…" should be "… SCR system…".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall comment:
In the work, the authors optimized the design parameters of a SCR system by using a Metamodel with KRG, EDT, and RBFi algorithms. To constrain the optimization result, the ammonia Uniformity Index (UI) is used as the optimization objective function. The best parameter fitting is going to make the UI close to 1. The authors compared the accuracy of the three algorithms based on three errors and found that the KRG algorithm shows the best-fitting results. Compared to the base model they used, the metamodel shows an improvement of 1.44% for the UI. Overall, the work is about using a metamodel for SCR device design parameters optimization. The novelty of the work is not well illustrated in the introduction part. Besides, there is a lack of detailed discussion about how Metamodel improved the UI value. Finally, the paper needs major work on language editing.
Comment 1: CFD should be written as a full name at the beginning.
Comment 2: For equation 5, it should be a Max function.
Comment 3: For the optimization process, for example, the optimization process in Table 3, is there only one set of data that can achieve the maximum objective function or there are more sets? Why there is only one set of data shown?
Comment 4: How would the optimized SCR parameters affect NOx emission? The author mentioned that there is a 1.44% UI improvement by using the metamodel prediction. Nevertheless, how much this would affect NOx emissions? It is worth it to change the design parameters for this 1.44% of improvement?
Comment 5: Can the author explain why the Metamodel works better than the base model and DOE? What induces the improvement?
Editing should be focused on the sentence's logic. There are many misuses of the linking words. Inappropriate use of verbs for many sentences. Please check the language thoroughly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have carried out a thorough and careful revision and the revised manuscript improved a lot in terms of technical quality and language. Therefore, I would recommend it for publication in the Journal.
Please see the Comments and Suggestions for Authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed the comments properly.
Minor English checking is needed.
