Experimental Analysis of a Spray Hydrocooler with Cold Energy Storage for Litchi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper “Experimental analysis on a spray hydrocooler with cold energy storage for litchi” can be accepted for publication, but several areas need improvement. I recommend this manuscript for publication after the clarification of the following major comments. See the comments below:

1. Define the novelty of the work. Please specify your research nobility.

2. Originality and significance need to be clearly conveyed.

3. This paper should need a performance analysis of other published results. Because several studies have been already published in this field

4. The introduction section needs to be revised. More paragraphs. More related works. Also, the introduction section must incorporate more recent developments in this field.

5. The figure’s quality needs to improve.

6. There are multiple grammatical errors in the manuscript. Authors are advised to check the typos and grammatical issues thoroughly with dedicated software

7. Conclusions should be more than mere restating of results. The authors need to revise the conclusion section. It must clearly reflect the key conclusions and findings must be highlighted in points.

8. The authors need to take notes in the revision stage and cite relevant references including high-impact journals to make the manuscript to a broad range of readers.

9. Add some recent references and also, the numbers of references need to be extended in the revision stage.

The paper “Experimental analysis on a spray hydrocooler with cold energy storage for litchi” can be accepted for publication, but several areas need improvement. I recommend this manuscript for publication after the clarification of the following major comments. See the comments below:

1. Define the novelty of the work. Please specify your research nobility.

2. Originality and significance need to be clearly conveyed.

3. This paper should need a performance analysis of other published results. Because several studies have been already published in this field

4. The introduction section needs to be revised. More paragraphs. More related works. Also, the introduction section must incorporate more recent developments in this field.

5. The figure’s quality needs to improve.

6. There are multiple grammatical errors in the manuscript. Authors are advised to check the typos and grammatical issues thoroughly with dedicated software

7. Conclusions should be more than mere restating of results. The authors need to revise the conclusion section. It must clearly reflect the key conclusions and findings must be highlighted in points.

8. The authors need to take notes in the revision stage and cite relevant references including high-impact journals to make the manuscript to a broad range of readers.

9. Add some recent references and also, the numbers of references need to be extended in the revision stage.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for the scientific evaluation of our research in your revise of 16/06/2023. My co-authors and I would also like to thank you of your caring comments. We have now carefully considered the comments and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. In this revised version, Point-by-point responses to the reviewers are listed. We hope that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in the applied sciences.

We are looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Hao Huang / Enli Lv

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents and tests a novel TES-based spray hydrocooler, which is very interesting and meaningful. The experiments were well conducted. It can be considered for publication after addressing the following minor issues:

1. Similar work has been widely reported (Doi: 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2021.10.001). How about the novelty of this paper?

2. Can this device be used for precooling other fruits?

 

3. In the Introduction, some recent work should be cited to draw more readers’ attention. Such as Doi: 10.1007/s10845-017-1382-7; 10.3390/batteries9050279; 10.54097/fbem.v8i2.6616.

well-written.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for the scientific evaluation of our research in your revise of 16/06/2023. My co-authors and I would also like to thank you of your caring comments. We have now carefully considered the comments and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. In this revised version, Point-by-point responses to the reviewers are listed. We hope that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in the applied sciences.

We are looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Hao Huang / Enli Lv

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript presents a TES-based spray hydro cooler. The methodology is clearly illustrated. The experiment configuration is well presented. A few concerns need to be addressed.

1.   In Eq. (10), the contact resistance between the ice and coil may need to be considered.

2.   Fig. 3 is generated from Eqs. (10-14). A validation with real measured total thermal resistance is necessary.

3.   For the results in Fig. 12, more physics-based explanations should be provided for the trend of the spray precooling capacity and precooling rate under distinct conditions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for the scientific evaluation of our research in your revise of 16/06/2023. My co-authors and I would also like to thank you of your caring comments. We have now carefully considered the comments and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. In this revised version, Point-by-point responses to the reviewers are listed. We hope that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in the applied sciences.

We are looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Hao Huang / Enli Lv

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The author should clearly mark the relative error between the experiment and the simulation

2. Applications of the study should be added in the paper

3. The novelty of the article is not coming out very clearly in the introduction. Please elaborate the novel aspect of your study in the end of introduction section.

4. Uncertainty of the data should be calculated and shown in plots

5. Can the author provide reference formulas for relevant literature for comparison? 

6. Can there be specific conclusions on the overall impact of the spray hydrocooler?    

Moderate revision of article syntax is required 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for the scientific evaluation of our research in your revise of 16/06/2023. My co-authors and I would also like to thank you of your caring comments. We have now carefully considered the comments and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. In this revised version, Point-by-point responses to the reviewers are listed. We hope that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in the applied sciences.

We are looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Hao Huang / Enli Lv

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The article includes:
6 chapters and references
The paper also includes 13 images and 4 tables.
In figure 13 there is an editorial error in the form of incorrectly labelled charts with captions
The references include 35 literature items from recent years. This indicates the actuality of the research problem presented in the article.

The article is prepared in a very clear manner and has very clear glossaries of designations
It allows the reader to understand the technical problem related to litchi storage.
I believe that the article is suitable for publication after the improvement of Figure 13.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for the scientific evaluation of our research in your revise of 16/06/2023. My co-authors and I would also like to thank you of your caring comments. We have now carefully considered the comments and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. In this revised version, Point-by-point responses to the reviewers are listed. We hope that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in the applied sciences.

We are looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Hao Huang / Enli Lv

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Recommendation: Accept

This paper will be useful to readers and researchers working in this area. I recommend publishing the manuscript in its present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has answered my question