PM2.5 Collection Enhancement in a Smart Hybrid Wet Scrubber Tower
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
GENERAL COMMENTS
In the reviewed manuscript, the authors present the results of research on the removal of PM2.5 particles from the air polluted by diesel engine exhaust using a wet scrubber, called by the authors Smart Hybrid (why?). During the research, the influence of the L/G ratio (Liquid to gas flow rate), the size of liquid droplets and gas flow turbulence on the efficiency of PM2.5 removal from exhaust gases was analyzed. As a result, the authors come to the following quite obvious conclusions:
• An increase in the L/G ratio increases the efficiency of PM2.5 removal,
• The smaller diameter of the sprayed liquid droplets within the tested limits of 270-520 μm contributes to better removal of PM2.5 from exhaust gases.
The use of ring packing did not contribute to increasing the dust removal efficiency.
Moreover, it was found that it is possible to meet WHO standards by using the tested scrubber for the indicated dusty gas parameters (inlet dust concentration <250 mg/m3) and by using the turbulence system filled with water (level 150 mm) and water spraying.
Although the presented work is consistent with the profile of the journal and raises the still important problem of increasing the efficiency of PM2.5 particle removal, the manuscript in its present form cannot be recommended for publication in the Processes. It requires a careful and thorough revision.
The main objection is the lack of significant novelties in the presented results and the inaccurate description of the research conducted, and it is not clear what the authors want to use the tested device for.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 1: line 15: the authors write: "with densities ranging", whereas it is about "concentration".
• Page 1, line 16 and further throughout the text, the authors use the term "liquid-to-air ratio", meanwhile in the literature (also cited by the authors [5]) the term "the ratio of liquid to gas" is used, and this is because that waste gases are usually purified. In the case of this manuscript it may be acceptable to use a "liquid-to-air ratio", the authors should consider this and explain it in the text.
• Page 2, line 53, the authors write "venture" incorrectly, it should be: "venturi".
• Page 3, line 107, the authors write: 45 l/m, it should probably be 45 l/min.
• Page 3, line 108, the authors write: “liquid-to-air ratio of up to 13.21 l/m3”, and on page 8, line 218 there is a higher value of 14 l/m3.
• Page 4, Fig. 1 should contain at least a description of the individual elements so that you can understand how the polluted air flows in and out, where the packed bed is located, and where the swirling elements shown in Fig. 6 are located.
• Page 5, line 162: the formula has no number.
• Page 5, line 166, the authors write: "The experimental setup is presented in Figure." What is the drawing number?
• Page 6, chapter 5, why do the authors quote the data in Fig. 4, what does it mean for the manuscript?
• Page 6, lines 186-188; the authors provide the values: 8.51, 6.08 and 3.40 cm - what unit is this? and then determine the L/G coefficient, giving the values 5.41, 9.56 and 13.21 l/m3 - where do they come from?
• Page 7, line 208: size of water drops expressed in mm, should be um,
• Page 10, lines 279-280, the authors write: "(...) contact surface area between and water." There's a word missing here.
I hope my above opinion will help the authors revise and resubmit a better manuscript for publication in the Processes.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “PM2.5 Collection Enhancement in a Smart Hybrid Wet Scrubber Tower” (Ref. No 974579). Those comments are valuable, helpful for revising and improving the manuscript, and essential in guiding our research. I have studied the comments carefully and addressed them, which we hope to meet with approval.
Sincerely yours,
Akasit Wansom
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
PM2.5 Collection Enhancement in a Smart Hybrid Wet Scrubber Tower, by Akasit Wansom et al
In this paper, innovative approach is described. The research integrates IoT with a hybrid wet scrubber tower for real-time monitoring and control of PM2.5, which is a commendable and innovative approach. The results indicating the effectiveness of the liquid-to-air ratio, droplet size, and turbulence on PM2.5 removal efficiency are valuable. Questions and suggestions for further research are raised: The author should answer these questions and revise the paper before the paper acceptance.
1. Could the efficiency of packed beds be optimized? Since the packed bed materials did not enhance PM2.5 removal efficiency, is there a possibility that different materials or configurations could yield better results?
2. On long-term performance and maintenance, how does the wet scrubber tower perform over extended periods, and what are the maintenance requirements, especially considering the potential for clogging and wear?
3. On comparison with other PM2.5 removal technologies, how does the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of this system compare with other existing PM2.5 removal technologies?
4. On scalability and practical application, can the design be scaled up for industrial applications, and what are the challenges associated with larger-scale operations?
5. How do external environmental factors like temperature, humidity, and air composition affect the performance of the wet scrubber?
6. On further exploration of IoT integration, can the IoT system be enhanced for predictive analysis or automated adjustments based on real-time data for even greater efficiency?
7. What are the implications of this technology on public health, especially in urban areas with high PM2.5 levels?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “PM2.5 Collection Enhancement in a Smart Hybrid Wet Scrubber Tower” (Ref. No 974579). Those comments are valuable, helpful for revising and improving the manuscript, and essential in guiding our research. I have studied the comments carefully and addressed them, which we hope to meet with approval. Please see the attached file for the update version.
Sincerely yours,
Akasit Wansom
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
