Calculation of the Mass Transfer Coefficient for the Dissolution of Multiple Carbon Dioxide Bubbles in Sea Water under Varying Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper deal with the mass transfer coefficient from carbon dioxide bubbles experimentally. The topic is interesting. However, there are some comments on this paper:
The snapshots (or movie) of the experiment is needed for the reader to understand the condition of the experiment The authors evaluated the value of mass transfer coefficient using equations (2) and (7). To satisfy Eq.(2)=Eq.(7), small variations of bubble radii is needed in the experiment. However, I cannot read about this point from this paper. How did you change the retention time from 40s to 160s. In conclusion 4, the author concluded "Schmidt number that affects mass transfer is more dominant than diffusivity". However, in Schmidt number, there is the diffusivity. As the results, is the viscosity the dominant on the mass transfer?Author Response
Many thank you for your review of “Calculation of the Mass Transfer Coefficient for the Dissolution of Multiple Carbon Dioxide Bubbles in Sea Water Under Varying Conditions”. The authors have considered all your comments carefully and have revised the manuscript accordingly. By reflecting the review contents and revising the manuscript, the completeness of the thesis was improved. Please see the attachment as response and manuscript modification of comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work mainly discusses the process of the mass transfer and the calculation of the mass transfer coefficient for the dissolution of multiple carbon dioxide bubbles in sea water. I have checked the manuscript and I would like to address a minor revision before it is accepted by JMSE journal.
Page 2, lines 74 and 75 “As can be seen from Eqs. (2) and (3)…”
The authors discussed the Eq. (3) before they show it. This sentence should be moved (i.e. after Eq. (3)).
Page 2, lines 76 – 79
Some of the parameters should be explained, i.e. C0, D, V, r, and t
Page 2, lines 80 – 83
The parameters should be explained.
Page 5, line 133
I suggest you introduce the symbols into the equation 7.
Page 5, lines 134 and 135
The authors should standardize the vocabulary regarding the parameters from Eq. 7.
“amount of injected gas” vs. “amount of input gas”
“amount of insoluble gas” vs. “amount of undissolved residual gas”
This approach introduces some confusion for the reader
Pages 5-7, Figs. 2, 3, and 6
In my opinion, trend lines (dotted or dashed ones) should be introduced.
Pages 7 and 8, Fig. 6 and Tab. 6
“W/ Inline Mixer” and „W/O Inline Mixer” - What does it mean? These shortcuts should be introduced in line 209 (page 8).
Author Response
Dear. Editor and reviewers,
Thank you for your review of “Calculation of the Mass Transfer Coefficient for the Dissolution of Multiple Carbon Dioxide Bubbles in Sea Water Under Varying Conditions”. The authors have considered all your comments carefully and have revised the manuscript accordingly. By reflecting the review contents and revising the manuscript, the completeness of the thesis was improved. Please see the attachment as response and manuscript modification of comments.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author answered the all comments. I can recommend for publication.
