Heat Conduction and Microconvection in Nanofluids: Comparison between Theoretical Models and Experimental Results
, Sandra Corasaniti 2,*, Girolamo Costanza 2, Fabio Piccotti 2, Michele Potenza 2 and Maria Elisa Tata 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommend accepting the manuscript after the authors do the major revisions included in the review report in the attachment file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
Two sets of experimental data were analyzed: one was taken from the literature and the other one was obtained through experimental tests. Different theoretical models, each considering considers some physical phenomena and neglecting others, were used to explain the experimental results. In this way, it was possible to identify the most relevant physical. Paper is of current interest and falls in the scope of the journal, however, there are the following suggestions authors should address and then I welcome for publication:
R#2: “The originality of the paper needs to be further clarified in the Abstract. Please, involve the novelty of this paper not what you have done in this study.” & “The abstract can be written in a more interesting fashion in an arrange form with the important numerical outcomes. The structure of the abstract needs a revision. Revise the abstract to provide (i) the significance of the study, (ii) the aim of the study, (iii) the research methodology, (iv) the major conclusion of the study.”
A: A: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have reviewed the abstract and made the necessary changes.
R#2: “A clear research motivation along with how this study is important to fill research gap in this area must be added at the end of introduction section.”
A: The abstract and introduction have been changed at your suggestion to emphasise the importance of this work to the field of research.
R#2: “Please check all manuscript for typo and punctuation mistakes, such as Definite and Indefinite Articles (a, an, the), etc. There are several grammatical mistakes. Please work close to a native English speaker to refine the language of this manuscript.”
A: Done, a thorough review of the paper was done and it was corrected by a native English speaker ..
R#2: “The literature review section should be improved. It should be dedicated to present critical analysis of state-of-the-art related work to justify the objective of the study. Also, critical comments should be made on the results of the cited works. The author should need to add the latest studies in the revised manuscript such as:
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00599-y
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-020-04089-w ”
A: Done
R#2: “Please go through the correctness of all mathematical equations. All equations not derived by the authors must cite by appropriate references.”
A: All mathematical equations have been checked and we have also ensured that the equations taken from the literature are correctly reproduced.
R#2: “Figures must be arranged in correct form (after Figure 5 came Fig. 1)”.
A: We are very sorry, but something went wrong with the upload and all cross-references and captions failed. We have fixed the problem.
R#2: “Some of figures are not described and mentioned in the manuscript body text. Revise it.”
A: Done
R#2: “The sentence "All other theoretical models give results that are far from the experimental data." is not accurate. Also some of observations in Page 19 must be revised.”
A: Done
R#2: “The conclusion is very informative but at the end of the conclusion kindly state the further openings of the upcoming researchers. Conclusions section should be improved by putting it in abbreviated points.”
A: Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents several theoretical models for heat conduction and microconvection in nanofluids, and conducts experiments to compare the models. It is very valuable work in this field. I think the manuscript is ready to be published once the following concerns are addressed:
1. All the cross references of tables and figures are invalid in the manuscript. Please fix that.
2. I prefer that the authors can move the nomenclature to the beginning of the manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
The manuscript presents several theoretical models for heat conduction and microconvection in nanofluids and conducts experiments to compare the models. It is very valuable work in this field. I think the manuscript is ready to be published once the following concerns are addressed:
R#1: “All the cross references of tables and figures are invalid in the manuscript. Please fix that.”
A: We are very sorry, but something went wrong with the upload and all cross-references and captions failed. We have fixed the problem.
R#1: “I prefer that the authors can move the nomenclature to the beginning of the manuscript.”
A: Thank you for the suggestion, we moved the nomenclature at the top of the paper between the abstract and the introduction.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After checking through the revised version, it is worth mentioning that the authors have satisfactorily responded to all the questions and made the necessary changes to the manuscript. I have no further questions and suggest the acceptance of the revised manuscript.
