Eulerian Description of Wave-Induced Stokes Drift Effect on Tracer Transport

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written and of high interest not only to JMSE readers. I recommend to accept it after minor corrections. See details below:

Line 41: 'Stokes', not 'Sotkes'

Lines 81-83: 'In view of ...', rewrite the sentence!

Line 124: epsilon in usual font, not subscript

Line 198: indent first line, following the general style of the paper

Line 209: formulas may not fit with page width and have to be written over more lines

Lines 353, 359 and Figure 9: I recommend to indicate sub-figures by letters (a)-(f), and then use these letters in the text.

Line 366: 'take' not 'takes'

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper "Eulerian description of wave-induced Stokes drift effect on tracer transport" with  Manuscript Number jmse-1547973 is recommended for revision. Here are some technical observations:

 

Strengths:

1. Good outline and presentation.
2. Good presentation of the work and mathematical formulations
3. Good discussion and conclusion.
4. Good introduction but must be improved.
5. Good highlights and good abstract.
6. Authors have good knowledge of the subject area.
7. Good signposting and cross-referencing.
8. Good definition of abbreviations and nomenclature. Check that all are well defined. You may add an abbreviations list

 

Weaknesses:

1. English language check and editing is required. Some proof reading is needed, likely using a native English speaker or one with good English strength. Long sentences should be made shorter. Check the use of punctuation marks, such as comma (,) used instead of full stop (.).
2. In Section 1, authors should include an image of offshore tracer applied in the ocean or an illustration of a full view as well.
3. In Section 1, authors should add some issues or try to address such limitations of the wave-induced drift tracer work, which this work conducted will address.
4. No graphical abstract was found but it is recommended.
5. In the paper, the referencing style is not correct. JMSE uses cannonical style in square brackets, and not a mix of the 2 styles, such as "Monismith and Fong (2004) [3]...,  Rohrs et al. (2014) [4] ...." See related JMSE papers and JMSE authors guidelines.
6. In discussion, add some references too to explain some of the reasons to justify the work conducted.
7. The results in this work are not sufficient on the study. Include more results and discuss them, maybe more comparative graph or profile plots on the findings, if possible.
8. A limitation of the study is that authors did not define the methodology very well. Improve on the steps taken to produce the results.
9. Include more technical discussion in the body's content in the paper by improving on the discussion.
10. How was the model validated? Include this in the paper
11. Add reference to every equation presented that is not original to the authorship, appropriately. Make sure that all equations that are not original to the authors are referenced as cited.
12. The abstract is well rewritten. However, the main highlight of the findings/ result should also be presented in the last part of the abstract. 
13. What are the new things made to the advection diffusion equation? Also, how does the size of the tracer affect the model? 
14. Good references but can be improved. Improve the references with more to improve its citeability and scientific impact, and relevance. The references need to be improved with more MDPI related publications to improve its relevance. Also add more discussion on the wave-induced motions and wave-and-current interaction, and use the following related references:

1. Edward C, Kr. Dev DA. 2021. Assessment of CALM buoys motion response and dominant OPB/IPB inducing parameters on fatigue failure of Offshore Mooring chains. In: Okada T., Suzuki K., Kawamura Y, editor. Practical design of ships and other floating structures. PRADS 2019. Lecture notes in civil engineering. Vol. 64. Singapore: Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-981-15-4672-3_35.

 

1. Amaechi CV, Wang F, Ye J. 2021. Numerical assessment on the dynamic behaviour of submarine hoses attached to CALM buoy configured as lazy-S under water waves. J Mar Sci Eng. 9(10):1130. DOI: 10.3390/jmse9101130.
1. Amaechi C.V., Wang F., Ye J., 2022. Investigation on hydrodynamic characteristics, wave-current interaction, and sensitivity analysis of submarine hoses attached to a CALM buoy. J Mar Sci Eng., 2022, 10(1), 120; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10010120.

Hasanvand E, Edalat P. 2020. Sensitivity analysis of the dynamic response of CALM oil terminal, in the Persian Gulf region under different operation parameters. Int J Mar Eng. 16(32):73–84. DOI:10.29252/marineeng.16.32.73. Available at: https://marine-eng.ir/article-1-794-en.pdf.

1. Hasanvand E, Edalat P. 2021. A comparison of the dynamic response of a product transfer system in CALM and SALM oil terminals in operational and non-operational modes in the Persian Gulf region. Int J Coastal Offshore Eng. 5(1):1–14. http://ijcoe.org/article-1-232-en.html.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf