Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary

This work by Paweł A. Mazurek presents a measurement result of the electromagnetic emission from a plasma reactor. This work mainly considers the compatibility with the requirements of the EMC Directive of plasma reactors for neutralisation of toxic gases.
Although they show an original measurement result for a plasma reactor, covering from 30MHz to 3GHz, in my opinion, this manuscript does not reach to the bar for a publication in Applied Science, in terms of quality and achievement.
The followings is a list of my concerns

Major issues

Lack of references to the existing results

There are a lot of reports about the electromagnetic emission from plasmas, but none of them are referred in this article. After a quick googling, I could find for example + Le Bourlot, J., Pineau des Forêts, G., & Flower, D. R. (1999). The cooling of astrophysical media by H2. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 305(4), 802–810. + Klapas, D., Apperley, R. H., & Benson, F. A. (1978). Electromagnetic Interference from Electric Arcs in the Frequency Range 0.1-1000 MHZ. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, EMC-20(1), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.1978.303647
The device considered in this work is different from them, but these proceeding works should be respected, mentioned and compared.

Lack of general discussion based on the observation

They showed the electromagnetic emission observed from their plasma device. However, this may change depending on the device, shielding, power supply, etc. Presented in this manuscript is just an observed result for a particular device, not knowledge obtained / inferred from this result. I think any scientific paper should give us some general knowledge.

Minor issues

There is a typo in the title.

It is surprising to me that the title, which is the most important for a manuscript, has a typo.
plasma rectors -> plasma re`a`ctors

Notation should be unified.

There are both `GridArc` and `Gridarc`

page 3, the second line from the last

`The spark discharges occur in the air at a voltage of 8÷12 kV' The meaning unclear.

page 4 the fourth paragraph

CISPR 16 : citation is necessary

page 6 the last paragraph

`with the average detector' : Meaning unclear.

Author Response

I'm sending answers in a file, I've also corrected the main article file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this very interesting paper. 

Please address the following comments:

1. The paper has to be carefully edited by the Author, please, in order to reduce repetitive sentences and make the content more concise. For example, page 2

"The maximum levels of disturbance emitted by the equipment are strictly defined in the standards for that equipment. These levels are defined by the value of the electromagnetic field strength in the environment of the object or the power radiated by the object. Most new equipment and installations are regulated by general standards. The standards describe electromagnetic
environments and their division into: (a) residential, commercial, light industrial and (b) industrial environment [1, 2]. " 

could be compressed into two shorter sentences without the loss of information. Please look carefully through the manuscript for similar examples.  

2. Measurement results - Figs 5-8, is this correct to say that the measured level of E-field is 10-20 dBuV is higher than the maximum allowed by the standard? 

3. Did you measure the field in just one spatial location or several locations around the reactor? It would be essential to measure the spatial variation of the field level in order to comply with the safety regulations, not just provide a measurement in a single spatial position. 

4. if there is some novelty as compared to the previous results, could you please describe that. For example, you could justify novelty from more systematic approach to the measurements or say that you presented detailed measurement procedure for the first time etc.

5. The paper could be significantly enhanced, if the effect of any simple shielding (e.g. mesh) can be included, to demonstrate how this could reduce the radiated E-field level. 

6. Would it be possible to provide data for higher frequencies upto to 10GHz or higher, please?

Thanks in advance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

I'm sending answers in a file, I've also corrected the main article file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Appreciation of the article “Chosen aspects of electromagnetic compatibility of plasma rectors with gliding arc discharges”, submitted by Paweł A. Mazurek to “Applied Sciences” (ISSN 2076-3417)

 

General considerations:

This article deals with some aspects (“the analysis of electromagnetic emissions”) related to the electromagnetic compatibility of a plasma reactor installation using a 3-phase gliding arc plasma generation, under the technological name GlidArc, existing in the laboratory of the Department of Electrical Engineering & Electrotechnologies from the author's University.

More than an article, it seems to me a technical report where the analysis and discussion of the results obtained are treated briefly and, at the same time, many technical details about standards and their designations are provided, as well as the denomination of the instrumentation used in the measurements performed.

The English used is reasonable and understandable although it can be improved here and there.

The paper needs a more explicit "abstract", in particular making reference to the conclusions drawn regarding the particular experimental installation used. Also important is the explicit reference that the tested experimental setup is the one existing in a given location and that therefore the results obtained may not have a general validity.

The “results” section needs a more complete and understandable analysis of the results and the “discussion” should be more careful and more detailed, providing more explanations about figures 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are central to the content of the article.

The results that were obtained, necessarily preliminary - the author himself indicates that "does not have electronic control or data systems", and that the study is “limited to the analysis of the power supply circuits" -, demand that more and different tests to be performed, including those which require another technologies, and which may be relevant to be able to generalize (or not) the results reported in the present paper to other plasma reactor installations with gliding arc discharges and also to improve the installations  performance in what concern the electromagnetic compatibility. According to the author, “the presentation of the full compatibility analysis of the installation is an extensive publication, therefore the article only deals with the analysis of electromagnetic emissions.” On lines 117-119, the author states that “The tests consist of two parts. The first part is the analysis of radiated interference emitted by the reactor installation, and the second part – conducted interference measured in the power supply and ignition system of the reactor”. And also that, and I will repeat myself citing the author, “The reactor installation does not have electronic control or data systems, so the tests of conductive electromagnetic interference are limited to the analysis of the power supply circuits.”

 

Some specific considerations and suggestions:

In the “title” of the paper, where is "rectors" must be read "reactors

In the “abstract”, line 17: “…that reduce radiated and conductive interference.” => that reduce radiated and conducted interference

Line 68: “…process gas” => working gas

Line 104: “These transformers provide a max 1.6 kV sinusoidal power supply” => These transformers provide a maximum sinusoidal power supply of 1.6 kV

Line 112-113: “The spark discharges occur in the air at a voltage of 8÷12 kV. The distance between the electrodes in the ignition zone was set at approx. 0,5 cm” => The spark discharges occur in the air at a voltage of 8 - 12 kV. The distance between the electrodes in the ignition zone was adjusted to approximately 0.5 cm

Lines 117-119: “The first part is the analysis of radiated interference emitted by the reactor installation, and the second part – conducted interference measured in the power supply and ignition system of the reactor.” => The first part is the analysis of radiated interference emitted by the reactor installation, and the second part that of the conducted interference measured in the power supply and ignition system of the reactor.

Line 149: At the end of line 149 there is one extra parentheses

Lines 165-166: “a maximum value detector (P) and an average value detector (AV) => the symbols P and AV are not used again in the text and, therefore, are of no use

Lines 184—185:  “Figure 7 shows the levels of conducted disturbances in phase and neutral cables supplying the ignition system” => Figure 7 shows the levels of conducted disturbances in the phase and neutral cables that supply the ignition system

Line 187: “All conductive disturbances were measured with average detector” => All conduction disturbances were measured with the average detector.

Line 191: The caption to figure 8 is exactly the same as in figure 4. It should probably be:

Figure 8. Measurement results – levels of conducted disturbances in the three phase wires supplying the operating electrodes of the reactor

Lines 194-195: The first paragraph of the "discussion" section (lines 194 and 195) should have been the first paragraph (current lines 169 and 170) of the "results" section.

Lines 196-197: “The reactor is built for research tasks. The working media during operation can be nitrogen, helium, argon, oxygen and air mixture. For the purpose of this publication, tests with air are used”. In the article, lines 197, 199 and 211, what is the difference between “air” and “air mixtures”?

Lines 202-203: “This is particularly evident in radiated disturbances.” => This is particularly evident in radiated disturbances, as can be seen on figure 6.

Lines 209-210: “The non-linear and asymmetric loads that characterise the plasma reactor translate exponentially into the random character of emission distribution.” => How can the author claim that there is an exponential variation?

Lines 210-211: “The measurement results obtained for air mixtures show significant exceedances of the limit values.” => The measurement results obtained for air mixtures show that the limit values are significantly exceeded

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I'm sending answers in a file, I've also corrected the main article file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revising your paper, it is improved now.

Could you please double check and edit English language through the text, please.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. I sent an article to the departmental translator who checked the article. I corrected article in mode the "track changes" function of WORD.