Optimum Driving of Ultrasonic Cleaner Using Impedance and FFT Analysis with Validation of Image Processing of Perforated Foils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Acoustic simulation via COMSOL Multiphysics has been conducted. A foil corrosion test was also studied with help of image processing. The experiment is well designed; however, the significant contribution of the work is lacking. The first half of work seems disconnected with the second half of the work. Tying errors were spotted on and off throughout the manuscript. A major improvement is significantly required for this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The novelty of this study is lacking. The two key elements highlighted - hydrophone and aluminium foil erosion detection - are not new. What the authors presented do not push the boundary of what has already been understood.

Of the many improvements needed, the key one would be the results and discussions. This section only consists of less than a quarter of the paper's content currently. While there are 300 datasets, the paper only showed a sample grayscale image. What is the repeatability of this image processing technique? How about the repeatability of the aluminium foil method itself? What is the deviation from one piece of aluminium foil to another using the same ultrasonic conditions? Does the aluminium foil erosion area really correlate to the input power and intensity? If so, how? There are many more questions that the authors can answer to value add to the work that had already been done in this area.

The paper title is also misleading. It seems to suggest that the image processing algorithm would help to optimise the ultrasonic cleaner. Unfortunately, the focus of the paper is lacking.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      Authors have not clearly mentioned the novelty of this work in the introduction section that what new information they are adding to this area, and how it differs from the previously reported work. The information on the design and application of ultrasonic cleaners given in the manuscript is not new and is already available in the literature. Therefore, the author should review the same and justify the novelty of the work before its further consideration.

2.      At line no. 98, In the sentence “Cavitation in ultrasonic cleaners is responsible for cleaning”. Correct the spelling of responsible and cite the suitable reference for the sentence.

3.      Provide the enlarge images with high resolution for Figure 4.

4.      In the foil corrosion test, at what intensity the sonication was done in term of sonication time, power amplitude etc.

5.      Did the author measure the calorimetric efficiency of the developed device? How much was the operating power and actually dissipated power? Author should include the calorimetric experiment and results as a third approach to know the efficiency of the device. Experiments with water at different sonication condition can be conducted and measure the temperature rise and thereby evaluate the amount power dissipation and efficiency.

 

6.      Have author checked the repeatability and reproducibility of the experiment? This needs to be mentioned in the methodology section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the additions, the manuscript has been improved significantly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have moderately considered the changes. The present manuscript can be accepted for publication