Airflow Distributions in a Z Type Centripetal Radial Flow Reactor: Effects of Opening Strategy and Opening Rate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Conclusion should not be in paragraph form. Better to keep point wise form for clear understanding.
- Quality of figures are very poor.
- Reference are too less. Add some more latest papers.
- English check in whole manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Bellow is the list of my objections:
- All figures are of poor quality and the graphs are unreadable. This makes it impossible to understand the work.
- How much was y+? What type of wall function was used? What simulation method was used?
- What type of boundary conditions was used?
- In my opinion, the fact the graphs are unreadable and all graphics are of poor quality excludes this article at the outset. The simulation end model is poorly described.
- The bibliography is outdated. The youngest items are from 2015. Position 8 in the references is unknown. The References section has many mistakes. It is necessary to cite at least a few works on this subject from the last 5 years.
- If the article will be not rejected, I will more focus on substantive issues when any graphs can be read.
Author Response
Thank you again for your valuable comments on this manuscript， please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper shows the effect of opening strategy and opening rate on airflow distributions in a Z-type centripetal radial flow reactor. The reviewer has some comments and questions regarding the content of the paper:
- All figures are shown in deficient quality, making it difficult to read the information. Please prepare the figures in higher resolution.
- Figure 4, Table 2: It is recommended to place the dimensions (in Table 2) directly on Figure 4.
- Please explain the strange velocity at the bottom left corner in all contour figures in Figs. 10 to 12.
- Line 277-278 “…the velocity at the bottom part is clearly higher than the medium part and the top part”. However, as the reviewer observed, the axial velocity is uniform from top to bottom, so please check this discussion?
- Figs.13-15 show the radial velocity but in Y-direction. Are they radial velocity or axial velocity?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Same remarks as before:
1. How much was y+? What type of wall function was used? What simulation method was used? The simulation should be better described. I know that the answer is in your reply but it must be described in the text.
2. The bibliography is outdated. The youngest items are from 2015. Position 8, and 11 in the references are incorrectly described. The references section has many mistakes. It is necessary to cite at least a few works on this subject from the last 5 years. I will not abandon this requirement.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to give a comment on the author's manuscript.
The author has re-edited the manuscript. In addition, the authors tried to revise the citations. Regarding bibliography, the author found only two articles in recent years that are closely related to the field after re-searching
Reviewer 3 Report
The answers are acceptable. However, the quality of some figures is still poor. Please try to replace these figures with higher resolution.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time again to review my manuscript!
Point 1: Please try to replace these figures with higher resolution.
Response 1: About the figure resolution in the comment you mentioned, could you please point out which figures still lack resolution if possible? If you mean the figures 10-12, I apologize, this is the highest figure resolution that I can have.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no more comments.
