Improvement of Mesh Atomizer Performance by Electrolytic Polishing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present manuscript describes the authors' efforts to improve the mesh atomizer performance by electro-polishing of atomization sheet. The authors have sufficiently documented in the introduction that this is an idea that is not well elaborated in the available literature. I consider the topic of the paper to be actual and the methods used to be adequate to the problem addressed, but I have a few reservations and comments on the paper. I believe that incorporating these comments will raise the quality of the manuscript to a level where the work can be published. 

Serious objections:

1. The authors often vaguely use the term atomization efficiency in the paper. Efficiency is a clearly defined quantity that is not calculated anywhere in the paper. The authors focus solely on the analysis of the change in flow through the atomizer due to the electrolytic polishing of the atomization sheet. This of course implies a change in atomization efficiency, but unless the authors intend to calculate efficiency (in %), I recommend avoiding this phrase. 

2. The authors relate the improvement in atomizer performance to the electropolishing time (t). I consider the choice of this variable to be inappropriate as it is a parameter specific to the experiment. Thus, the presented results depend on the material of the sheet, the technology of hole production, the original size of the holes and the condition of their inner surface (given by the burr height) or the electrolyte used (and probably on many others). The presented results are thus almost impossible to replicate exactly with a different apparatus than the one used by the authors of the paper. In my opinion, the geometry of the holes after electrolytic polishing plays a role. I recommend to present the results in such a form that they can be scaled and compared with the results of other authors. This, for me,  implies a different choice of independent variable. 

Further, less serious, objections. 

- in eq(6) are used diameters D1 nad D1' but in the Fig. 1 are used D and D'. 

- page 6, line 217: I recommend to reformulate the begining of sentence "a is 217 the distance from the metal sheet...".  

- I believe that in legend of the Fig. 5 are the symbols for the small and the large holes switched. Red should be the small holes (according to to the meaning of the figure)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Liang et al. proposed an electrocatalytic polishing process to improve the influence of burr. Impressively, a higher atomization amount, which is 3.93 times larger than the regular counterpart, is reached. The study demonstrated that polishing is effective for removal of burr in the process of hole machining. The manuscript is well organized, and the conclusions are well supported. There are a few suggestions before publishing.

1. Please further discuss the application of piezoelectric atomization technology in Introduction section. For example, the application of tiny droplets (why we need to disperse a liquid into tiny droplets). Corresponding, to briefly introduce this in Abstract would be helpful for audience.

2. Please specify how high/low the voltage is, instead of using “extremely”. (Line 101-104, Page 3). For researcher, it would be better to avoid using the words like “extremely”. We often use “relatively” or “comparatively” instead. Please address the problem throughout the manuscript.

3. Detailed information of chemicals should be provided in case of reproduction by other researchers. Information include but not limited to makers, purities, and models.

4. Some minor problems are needed to be addressed.

a. “In this experiment, while greatly reducing the amount of phosphoric acid and sulfuric acid, chromium anhydride components were removed, and polyethylene glycol was added as a thickening agent to replace the traditional process containing chromium anhydride.” There should be a conjunction before “chromium anhydride components were removed”.  Or it should be split into two sentences.

 b. Same problem with this sentence. “Lastly, if the distance between cathode and anode is too large, the resistance increases, the power consumption increases, and the solution is easy to heat up, affecting the polishing quality.”

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion is the the reviewed manuscript suitable for publication.