The Design and Experimental Study of a Double-Column Scrambler Wind–Sand Separator for Sustainable Soil Wind Erosion Monitoring
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please read the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have conducted experimental and numerical studies in a wind sand separator. There are several significant shortcomings in the paper that must be improved. Some of them are as follows:
1. The literature review is concise. The authors are advised to perform additional studies and elaborate on this section.
2. The research gap (in context to the previous literature) is not well defined.
3. What was the main reason for performing this study? What shortcomings were observed in the previous studies?
4. The study is not written in a sequence. For instance, Fig. 5 must be put first, followed by explaining the geometry proposed by the authors (with proper support for why the new geometry was proposed).
5. Governing equations are missing.
6. Numerical settings are not provided.
7. Figure illustrating the mesh must be included.
8. Validation of the numerical settings with the experimental data is missing.
9. No information on wall y+ is provided.
10. What value of the Courant number did the authors get at the time step of 0.0001s?
11. Which wall function was used?
12. How was this study better than the previous studies in this field?
13. It would be better if the authors provided the image of the actual test rig in the manuscript.
14. Pressure drop is one of the most important parameters in this device. Why didn't the authors consider this aspect?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved, but the reviewer had difficulty linking the improvement from the author's response report with the reviewer's comments previously. In the authors' response, the manuscript should consist of
· Comment, suggestion or point from the reviewer
· Author's response
What do the authors think about this comment? Oppose or accept with additional discussion.
· Authors' action
What did the authors do in the revised manuscript? Add the explanation in Line xxx or change something.
All the lists in the review report should be addressed following above. Accordingly, the author's response report should be revised.
Author Response
Dear reviewers.
We sincerely appreciate your guidance and valuable comments. We deeply apologize that our response report did not adequately address your request to clearly present the links between the comments, responses, and changes made in the revised draft. We sincerely apologize for this. We have revised our response report in line with your comments to ensure it is easier to understand our improvements.
If you have any additional suggestions or need more information, we will always be willing to provide it.
Thank you again for your review and valuable comments.
Sincerely, Xuyang Cai
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is suitably modified and may be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewers.
Thank you for your positive feedback. Thank you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript. We are happy to hear that you found our revisions to be appropriate. Please do let us know if there are any further steps or requirements. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Sincerely, Xuyang Cai
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Some Figure captions and numberings have missed typing. Please check again before publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your feedback, I have revised the paper based on your suggestions to ensure that all figure titles and numbering have been added and aligned correctly.
Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any other suggestions or need further revisions, as I would greatly appreciate your feedback to ensure the quality and integrity of the paper.
Thank you again for your professional input and I look forward to hearing your further guidance.
Sincerely.
Xuyang Cai
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
