First Law Optimization and Review of Double and Triple-Effect Parallel Flow Vapor Absorption Refrigeration Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Detailed First Law Optimization and Review of Double and Triple Effect Parallel Flow Vapour Absorption Refrigeration Systems” proposed a present communication deals the review, thermodynamic analysis and optimization of operational parameters for parallel flow double & triple effect vapour absorption refrigeration systems. Results show that coefficient of performance of the triple effect system has around 32% higher than the double effect, while 15-20% less consumption of the gases (liquified petroleum gas and compressed natural gas). It can be published in “processes” after revision. The concerns which should be considered are as follows:

1. The manuscript mentions that “the vapour absorption cooling system (VACS) is getting more attraction in published literature as a means of cooling production from different renewable sources”, which is too brief. Please add relevant literature to introduce. (Energies, 2022, 15(5), 1882.)；(Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 221, 113162.)；(Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021, 143, 110912.); (ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2019, 7, 16843-16857.)

2. The manuscript mentions “several mixtures have been tested and plethora of research has been reported on different suitable mixtures” and the author must provide a detailed introduction to which mixtures and what research has been conducted. And introduce the research conducted on “ionic liquids, inorganic salts, and organic” in the following text. Please provide an explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of “Garousi et al. did thermodynamic study of all the three types of DE-VACS including reverse parallel flow, parallel and series flow configuration. They have discussed pros and cons in the results of all the three configurations of the double-effect VACS.” mentioned in the article. Please carefully review the entire manuscript to ensure that related issues do not occur again.

3. The tables and images appearing in the manuscript should be described in detail, and the authors should conceptualize the description of figures such as Figure 1 in the manuscript.

4. The physical quantities involved in the formulas in the manuscript should be explained.

5. Please add a specific section to describe the code mentioned in section 3.3.

6. Does the lack of references in the article in recent years indicate that the authors' research is not novel? Please provide a description of recent research and add multiple recent literature. (Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 2023, 45, 102967.); (Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 2023, 49, 103167.); (Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 205, 112392.);etc.

7. The manuscript only considered one working fluid (lithium bromide water) and two types of energy sources (liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas), which may limit the generalizations of the findings to other types of refrigeration systems.

8. The manuscript did not consider the environmental impact of using LPG and compressed natural gas as energy sources, which could be an important consideration for some applications.

9. The manuscript did not provide a detailed cost analysis of dual-and triple-effect parallel flow steam absorption refrigeration systems, which may be an important consideration for practical applications.

10. The manuscript did not compare the performance of parallel flow steam absorption refrigeration systems with other types of refrigeration systems, such as steam compression refrigeration systems, which may limit the broader impact of the findings.

11. The manuscript did not discuss in detail the potential practical applications of dual-and triple-effect parallel flow steam absorption refrigeration systems, which may limit the relevance of the findings to industrial and engineering applications.

12. What is the reason for using lithium bromide aqueous solution as the working solution in this manuscript?

13. Ask the author to explain the formula mentioned in "System Modeling" in detail.

14. The manuscript can add some of the latest literature on thermodynamic optimization of industrial refrigeration systems.( Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2022,163, 107856; Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 192, 292-307; Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2022, 147, 13805–13827; Energy Conversion and Management, 2022, 270, 116238; Energy Conversion and Management, 2023, 289, 117190; Applied Thermal Engineering, 2023, 229, 120553; Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2021, 145, 1227-1253; Energy Conversion and Management, 2021, 236, 114093).

Author Response

Dear Sir, 
I have attached the detailed response file here. Please find the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper presents a topic of interest for researchers and practitioners. However, several improvements are needed.

1. The abstract should present the purpose of the paper and the main results obtained. It currently describes the current state and the need for research.

2. The introduction should be supplemented with other relevant research conducted in this field. In this way the research will show what is the gap it fills and what are the elements of originality. The introduction section must present the structure of the paper and what this paper proposes. The introduction could be systematized to make it easier to follow.

5. The discussion section should be consolidated and present the main results. Comparisons should be made with other studies (numerous in this field).

6. To emphasize the need for this study.

7. The stages of the methodology must be presented in detail.

8. To highlight the gaps filled by the present study.

9. The conclusions section should be completed with a review of the study.

The paper presents a topic of interest for researchers and practitioners. However, several improvements are needed.

Author Response

Dear Sir, 
I have attached the detailed response here.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

The paper presents an interesting current issue, is well laid out, the structure is correct, unfortunately it is not without shortcomings that hinder the correct reception of the converted content:

 - different formats were used to describe the material: for example, the first 2 figers are described as Fig, while further on as Figure. In addition, in the text also figure references are not clear.

- quite a lot of errors in the representation of special characters (for example, the designation of degrees);

- the description of the abbreviations used in the text is not clear. List of Abbreviations must be done.

In my opinion, the article can be published after corrections are made.

Best regards

Author Response

Detailed Response of the Reviewer/Editor Comments

I would like to sincerely thank to Associate Editor and Chief Editor for the time spent in reviewing my manuscript and the possibility to consider my work for publishing in this admired journal. The author deeply values the comprehensive comments needed to perform this revision and the valuable suggestions made by the respected reviewers. Kindly, find below my reply to the points raised and the corresponding modifications I have made in the revised manuscript to accommodate all the comments provided by the reviewers. My commitment to thoroughly revise this paper was definitely driven by the valuable comments and I am confident the paper has elevated to a greater level of clarity and professional contribution to the scientific outcomes.

 

Reviewer #3 Comments

Comment No. 1: The paper presents an interesting current issue, is well laid out, the structure is correct, unfortunately it is not without shortcomings that hinder the correct reception of the converted content:

Response: I thank the reviewer for the words of support. Hopefully, the revised version of the manuscript become more scientific and technical. The revised manuscript addressing the comments of all the three reviewers.

 

Comment No. 2: different formats were used to describe the material: for example, the first 2 figers are described as Fig, while further on as Figure. In addition, in the text also figure references are not clear.

Response:  Thanks for your valuable comment. I have improved the manuscript as per your suggestion.

 

Comment No. 3: quite a lot of errors in the representation of special characters (for example, the designation of degrees);

Response: Thanks for your comment. I have corrected them.

 

Comment No. 4: the description of the abbreviations used in the text is not clear. List of Abbreviations must be done.

Response: Thanks for your comment. I have added the nomenclature section.

Comment No. 4: In my opinion, the article can be published after corrections are made.

Response: Thanks sir for you word of support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All comments have been revised. I suggest that it be published on Processes

Reviewer 2 Report

I accept this version.