Innovative Acoustic-Hydraulic Method for High-Performance Fine Liquid Atomization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the authors have presented the design for an acoustic-hydraulic nozzle and investigates the physical processes when a liquid is sprayed using this nozzle.
The introduction and model presented in the manuscript is well written. But main problem in this manuscript is the explanation of the results obtained. Authors need to justify the nature obtained in the curves and detailed analysis should be presented (fig. 4 to fig. 8). Other suggestions are as follows:
(a) Introduction should include the novelty of proposed work. Some more references should be added in this part.
(b) In Fig. 2, the data given in table is not visible. Improve this.
(c) References should be provided for the standard equations used in the section 3.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our work and valuable comments. The answers are in the attached file. We have corrected the manuscript in accordance with your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes a design for an acoustic-hydraulic nozzle and investigates the physical processes when a liquid is sprayed using this nozzle, both theoretically and experimentally. The study identifies the critical modes of spraying and confirms that the simultaneous use of ultrasound and hydraulic pressure can produce a fine spray with high productivity.
1. in the section of introduction，there’s a reference [1] mentioned "Although many combined spraying methods have been created [1], no attempts have been made to combine ultrasonic and hydraulic spraying", so please clarify in this parts, what's their combined methods.
2. please rewrite introduction part, the listed reference can not support the backgroud and development of the related research area. especially, ref [3-8] are totally useless.
3. in Figure 10, the agreement of calculation and experiment seems not so good, especially when p/pa>6。 please clarify this in order to prove the correction of calculation.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our work and valuable comments. The answers are in the attached file. We have corrected the manuscript in accordance with your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTITLE
- Include more specific information in the title, such as the achieved droplet size and productivity.
ABSTRACT
- Please provide more specific quantitative results in terms of achieved droplet size, productivity, and the comparison with existing technologies.
INTRODUCTION
- Please provide more detailed information on the specific challenges or gaps in the existing technology that the acoustic-hydraulic nozzle aims to address.
- Please provide a clear research objective or hypothesis.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
- Please provide more details about the specific properties of the tested liquid, any potential sources of error or variability in the measurements, and the rationale behind choosing the experimental parameters.
- Please include a schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF THE ACOUSTIC-HYDRAULIC NOZZLE
- How the model was developed and validated?
- Please explain the significance of the free parameters Dcr and k and how they were determined experimentally
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Please explain the significance of critical pressures and intensities, and how they relate to the theoretical model.
CONCLUSION
- Consider to include the impact on specific industries or technologies.
- Also can include the future research directions, such as potential optimizations or refinements of the nozzle design.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our work and detailed and valuable comments. The answers are in the attached file. We have corrected the manuscript in accordance with your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe overall logic of the thesis is clear, the research method is scientific and reasonable, and the innovation lies in “proposes a fundamental design for an acoustic-hydraulic nozzle and investigates the physical processes when a liquid is sprayed using this nozzle, both theoretically and experimentally.”, And the conclusions you draw in the text are supported by ample data.
There are some problems, which should be solved before it is considered for publication.
First of all, your images can be further embellished and improved so that they can be read with interest.
Secondly, in the Results and Discussion section, you can add more discussion at the end of each paragraph to help the reader better understand the contextual logic.
Thirdly, your language needs further polishing, so please try to avoid words like "let us".
Fourthly, the contents of your appendix could be sent to us in the form of supporting documentation rather than appearing directly in the manuscript.
Fifth, your explanation of the results of your experiment is not thorough and you need to explain your results in more words.
Finally, you have a low number of references cited and I hope you read more articles to enrich your essay. you can cite the document "Green Energy & Environment, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.gee.2022. 01.005" as this will better engage the reader.
Given a satisfactory response from the authors, I would propose that the paper be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageYour language needs further polishing, so please try to avoid words like "let us".
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our work and valuable comments. The answers are in the attached file. We have corrected the manuscript in accordance with your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed this manuscript entitled "Acoustic-hydraulic nozzle for fine spray and high performance". This work aims to present an acoustic-hydraulic nozzle and understand the physical processes of fine spray. The topic is interesting and meaningful. This work is detailed. However, a major/moderate revision is required.
My general comments in this review round.
1) Introduction is weak. The current form must be boosted. The authors mentioned that the
spraying method is widely used in industrial application. Please provide specific cases, performance, and potential mechanism.
2) What is the approximate velocity of the laser probe beam position? Have the author considered the impact of velocity changes on the detection results?
3) The physical units of individual variables must be presented in equations. Also, the author should also write necessary references of equations taken from literature.
4) The physical meaning of the coordinates in the figures must be clearly indicated.
5) Please enrich your results discussion. Section 4.2.2: please complement and enrich current statement “With increasing pressure, the size of the bubbles decreases in accordance with equation (9). Also, the size of the bubbles decreases with increasing frequency of exposure, but increases with increasing intensity.” With literatures, e. g. “Modeling of kinetic characteristics of alkaline‑surfactant-polymer-strengthened foams decay under ultrasonic standing wave (2022). Petroleum Science, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petsci.2022.04.012”; “Effect of Interface Structure and Behavior on the Fluid Flow Characteristics and Phase Interaction in the Petroleum Industry: State of the Art Review and Outlook(2023). Energy & Fuels, 37(14): 9914-9937”.
6) The orientation layout of Figures 1 & 3 should be consistent. making it easier for readers to understand the experimental process.
7) Conclusion section is not informative enough and should be rewritten more scientifically. Please put enough emphasis on the points of novelty of the proposed study in your Conclusions.
8) Please provide a nomenclature list, a glossary of any symbols of abbreviations used in the text. This can be included between the abstract and the beginning of the article text.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome typos should be double checked and corrected throughout the manuscript & Figures.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our work and detailed and valuable comments. The answers are in the attached file. We have corrected the manuscript in accordance with your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors in their revised manuscript could answer most of the concerns presented. Therefore, I think the article is suitable for publication.
