Study of the Impact of Tube Configurations on the Local Heat Transfer Coefficient in Mimicked Fischer-Tropsch Bubble Column Reactor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the draft manuscript is informative about the research paper. The research question is justified given what is already known about the topic. There are not enough details in order to replicate the study by others researchers. The obtained results are presented in almost an appropriate way. Some figures need improvements in order to will be more readable. The results are not discussed from multiple angles  into the context of the manuscript. Here are the most important topics/question to be dealt with:

1/ References should be cited consistently, i.e. with or without names of authors in the draft manuscript.

2/ The manuscript was written carelessly. There are many editorial errors in the body text. The Reviewer has the impression that this work was edited in a hurry, without due diligence. Below are enumerated the most common editorial/logical errors, for instance: Error!, Reference source not found etc. In the body text manuscript can be find crossed out words, for instance see page 6 line 170.

 

3/ Please provide information about model of 3D printer.

 

4/ How was ensured accuracy of temperature measurements? Please provide calibration procedure for used thermocouples.

 

5/ How were installed thermocouples in the test section? There is no figure that clearly shows how  thermocouples have been installed.

 

6/ It will be better, if all symbols and acronyms used in the body text of manuscript will be explained in separately section named Nomenclature. This will definitely improve  the perception of the present work.

 

7/ In the body of text manuscript, authors should cite specific figures for which is conducted analysis of findings. The analysis of obtained heat transfer data is a very  cursory and not properly for the research paper. The reader during reading this work look forward to discussion of obtained results in details with provide suitable explanations. The reader should not guess which drawing is discussed in the content of the draft manuscript.

 

8/ Due to the fact that this present work deals with experimental study, error bar for each data point should be presented in all graphs, for instance: figures 5-9 and 11-14.

 

9/ Please specify the bubble diameter and the bubbly frequency during all tests. By the way, experimental conditions should be described in separately new section.

 

10/ Figure 1 is located after Figure 9 in the body text of the manuscript (please see page 13).

 

11/ Conclusion section is an extremely short. What is the next step in the research study? At least two sentences with the recommended future research works should be indicated in the last section.

 

In addition, the manuscript has no more weaknesses. In relation to above considerations, I recommend resubmit manuscript to journal and do major revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate your comments so much. We have addressed all your comments. Kindly find the attached file (point to point table).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is clear and well written.

The topic of the paper is appropriate for the Journal.

The text of the paper was written correctly in terms of stylistically, punctuation and terminology.

The paper was correctly edited and graphically developed at a good level.

The literature was chosen correctly and fully used in the paper.

Correct the reference sources.

The paper deserves a positive assessment because it is current and interesting from both a cognitive and practical point of view.

Author Response

We appreciate your comments so much. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript (Processes-1689472) titled “Study the impact of the Tube Configurations on Local Heat Transfer Coefficient in Mimicked Fischer-Tropsch Colum Reactor” focus on the effect of tube bundle arrangement on local heat transfer coefficient. Please address the concerns:

 

• Page 3, line 104, Figure is missing.
• In many instance it is mentioned that Error: reference not found. Something is missing. Please carry out the corrections.
• The findings are not unique and it seems work as normal.
• Please compare your study with literature to establish the supremacy of your work.
• Reproduce Fig. 4 for more clarity. No clear trend of the effect of superficial gas velocity on local heat transfer coefficient has been observed. Also the effect of velocity on coefficient is not very significant. Please justify it.
• The study need to be conducted by considering some chemical reaction so as to address the real issue of temperature control inside the reactor.
• There are writing mistakes have been observed in many places in the manuscript (e.g. page 8, line 216-217).
• The Figures are not mentioned in the Text. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that which figure corresponds to what under the text.
• Include some quantitative results in abstract and conclusion section.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We appreciate your comments so much. We have addressed all your comments. Kindly find the attached file (a point-by-point response).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All graphs in the draft manuscript should be better quality.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been improved considerably and raised concerns have been addressed mostly.