Reactive PLIF Method for Characterisation of Micromixing in Continuous High-Throughput Chemical Reactors
, Ricardo Jorge Santos 2,3 and Maria Isabel Nunes 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find the comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The reply to reviewer's comments is in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please address my comments listed in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The reply to Reviewers' comments is in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, acid-base reaction with fluorescein as the reaction sensitive tracer and Fenton reaction with rhodamine-B as the reaction tracer were carried out. This article can be accepted after considering the following suggestions.
(1) The introduction part is suggested to be appropriately deleted, and the space is a bit too long, so it can be simplified.
(2) Whether the NaOH used in the reaction of strong acid and strong base and the reaction of weak acid and weak base is in line with the actual situation, the author is suggested to check again.
(3) At the test of emission intensity and fluorescein concentration, the shortcomings of low concentration fluorescein are introduced first, and then the relevant experiments of high concentration fluorescein are introduced. It is suggested that the author consider whether the previous low concentration introduction should be deleted.
(4) It is recommended to average the obtained values in multiple spectral readings to reflect the scientific nature of the article as much as possible.
(5) The dimensions in the geometric drawing of the T-shaped nozzle are not complete, and the author is advised to improve it.
(6) In the reaction of Fe and H2O2, it is recommended to add the determinant of the Reynolds number, and then specify whether the Reynolds number of the solution provided by the two injectors is the same.
(7) In comparing fresh fluorescein with fluorescein every other day, it is recommended to increase the number of experimental groups and take the corresponding average.
(8) When verifying that the reagent does not age, the data measured before and after 24 hours should be listed and compared to visually show the reader the characteristics of the reagent not ageing.
(9) The wave value filtered by the filter is greater than 540nm, and the peak value of RhB emission is 580nm. Will the filter filter other wavelengths emitted by RhB? It is recommended that the author give a detailed explanation here.
(10) The language needs to be finer, and grammatical errors need to be corrected.
Author Response
The reply to Reviewers' comments is in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate all the answers for my comments. However, I think that there are still some issues that could be considered.
1. Figures 3 and 4: I do understand the problem of different orders of magnitude in presentation. However, as I analyze those plots, the results for 500 nm and 532 nm are not very far from each other. In fact, they seem to be quite similar and they could be presented together in Figures 3b and 4b, respectively. In the same time Figures marked as “a” could remain as they are. Such a way of presenting the results could give the reader more insight in the relation between shown curves.
2. Figure 6-8,10 and 11: It would be helpful if the Authors could give even approximate time of the taken photographs, e.g. if they were taken at the beginning, at the end and somewhere in the middle or maybe three time points close to each other. Are the photos taken within 1 min period in all cases?
3. Figure 9: I do not need the information that in other papers also the increase at low wavelengths is present, but I would like to know why is it visible in this case. If the Authors do not know and cannot find the answer or provide any hypothesis than are they able to properly analyze received data?
Author Response
The answers to the 2nd revision are in the attached word file: Review_repply_2ndv2
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
