Research on the Particle Breakage Mechanism in High-Speed Shear Wet Granulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with the simulation of particle breakage using the DEM method. The idea is interesting. However, the manuscript should be reformed totally.
In the introduction, the available methods shall be introduced first (Eulerian or Lagrangian) I can recommend using the following references:
Nemati, H., and S. A. Shekoohi. "Particle number balance approach for simulation of a multi-chamber fluidized bed urea granulator; Modeling and validation." Powder Technology 369 (2020): 96-105.
D.E. Bertin, I. Cotabarren, J. Piña, V. Bucalá, Granule size distribution for a multi-chamber fluidized-bed melt granulator: modeling and validation using process measurement data, Chem. Eng. Sci. 104 (2013) 319–329.
Later the benefits of the used method shall be clarified.
The geometry and working condition must be clarified. The dimensions are only shown in Fig. 4 without specifying the unit of length.
Nowhere in the main text has been indicated to Fig. 4.
Formulas shall have references. It is not correct to use any formula without reference.
There are still a few typos in the text. For example flow chart in Lin 175.
Different parts and components of the granulator shall be introduced in detail.
In line 192: What do you mean by fundamental particles?
How is the arrangement of particles in Fig. 3? The particles can be collected in different ways that must be clarified.
In line 201: Are these parameters related to any specific material or are they selected by chance?
Table 1: these parameters are based on calculation and references are not required.
The used Software shall be introduced.
Initial and boundary conditions shall be stated clearly. For example, what is the boundary condition of walls, the initial height, and so on?
In line 383: Is it correct to present the diameter up to 4 decimal places in mm?
All in all, I highly recommend revising the manuscript and spending more time preparing it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached PDF
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I can now recommend it for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have improved their manuscript that now is suitable for publication.
