Prediction Model of Fouling Thickness of Heat Exchanger Based on TA-LSTM Structure
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject is interesting, but the publication gives the impression of a short report or technical note. Here are the main notes:
Page 1. No literature review. The topic is wide, and the introduction includes only 8 literature items.
Page 2. Lack of description of the heat exchanger operation, reasons for the formation of deposits on the walls of the exchanger.
Page 3. Formulas should be numbered. It is also worth adding a nomenclature with a description of quantities and units.
Page 6. It is worth extending the description plus possibly drawings of the tested heat exchanger. Boundary conditions should be described.
Page 7. No discussion. A discussion should be added.
Page 8. Figure 3. Add a description of the vertical and horizontal axes. Similarly, Figures 4 and 5.
Page 10. Fig. 5 Thicken the "real" line.
Page 11. Conclusion. In the conclusions, it is worth referring to the comparison with other models.
The publication rather has the appearance of a sketch from which to write an article.
English needs a little correction. In general, the publication should be expanded.
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The current manuscript must be improved by considering the following points:
1. Introduction: Please improve the contributions and novelty in the introduction section. What new knowledge, data, and contributions were made by the authors to fill the gaps in this area compared with the existing review paper in the literature?
2. Future work/perspectives and challenges of the technology should be discussed in detail.
3. A completed nomenclature should be provided.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The article under review presents a interresting topic, however, it suffers from several issues that demand attention. Firstly, the overall syntax and sentence structure are notably subpar, significantly hindering comprehension. To enhance clarity, authors must address grammatical errors and restructure convoluted passages.
Another area requiring revision is the bibliography section. Proper citation styles must be implemented uniformly. The bibliography should be arranged in accordance with the guidelines of the journal.
Furthermore, the review of the literature provided by the author is insufficient. By incorporating a broader range of sources, the paper could strengthen its arguments and present a more robust theoretical framework.
Table 3 or Figure 4 to choose from (both ways of presenting data are not needed)
Please provide a summary what benefits, what order of magnitude, the use of this model gives in comparison to the LSTM model.
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The publication has been extended but in my opinion it should be improved. Below are my comments:
Page 4. Line 128 no formula number.
Page 7. Table 1 should not be cited ?
Page 7. It is worth linking the data from Table 1 with Figure 1 through symbols where these quantities were measured.
Pages 9-10. The discussion should also be carried out with reference to the existing literature.
Page 11. The description of Figure 6 should be extended. "Number of validation samples" means the lot number from table 1 ? Real line should not be quoted ? Units are missing on the vertical axis of Figure 6. What is the relative error compared to the experiment?
The publication should be extended with new results of calculations of the thickness of the deposit obtained from the developed model for other boundary conditions, which resulted in interesting conclusions regarding the formation of the deposit for other operating conditions of the heat exchanger.
Page 14. Not all quantities are described in the nomenclature.
English needs a little correction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has significantly improved.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors referred to reviewer comments and improved the manuscript. The sections: Reference and Glossary of terms should be improved (references details order, esthetics).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Basically my comments were taken into account. "Table 1. Partial experimental data" is worth adding a citation here. As for minor remarks, I would supplement the formulas on the left with symbols in formulas number 9-10. In Figure 6, it is worth enlarging the font on the axes.
English needs a little correction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
