Variable Wall Permeability Effects on Flow and Heat Transfer in a Leaky Channel Containing Water-Based Nanoparticles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors studied the effects of different parameters on a 2D channel flow containing nanoparticles by solving a set of PDEs. The manuscript and scientific content is reasonable in overall, however there is a need to revise the content. The authors need to implement below comments into the manuscript.
1) Merge citations on page 1 line 39, page 2 line 53, page 2 line 62, page 2 line 78, page 5 line 150
2) Correct the size of font on page 2 from line 58 to 76
3) Please clarify and describe the aims, objectives and novelty of the study in the Introduction section.
4) Correct typos on page 1 line 12 and 20
5) List of dimensionless quantities on page 3 and 4 line 110-113 is little bit confusing. Please prepare a table instead.
6) There is a large number of equations in the manuscript. This is a research paper not a chapter of book, so please reduce the number of equations and describe more about the assumptions.
7) Please clarify and discuss about the solver, method of solution for PDEs and convergence criterion. Please prepare the trend of residuals to prove the convergence of equations.
8) section 3 is very short. please rearrange the sections in the manuscript and add sub-sections for a better understanding.
9) Correct text in table 1. What is the reference temperature and pressure for the parameters in this table.
10) Please add a Discussion section into the manuscript and describe the main takeaways for the community, analyse graphs and justify the trends.
11) The figures in the manuscript is very confusing. There are some figures before and some others after conclusion section that make no sense for the readers. Please add an appendix or integrate figure 6 to 14 into the body of manuscript before conclusion section.
12) I think authors need to find another way to present figures in the manuscript. They have tried to prepare some zoom boxes to show difference between materials. However, this is not clear for the readers. Authors can change the scales or add multiple zoom boxes.
13) authors just listed a large number of figures in the manuscript, but there is a lack of comprehensive description for each graph in the manuscript.
14) Please add the percentage of water and cu/Al2O3/TiO2, temperature, and pressure in the title and legend of figures.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Query-1: Merge citations on page 1 line 39, page 2 line 53, page 2 line 62, page 2 line 78, page 5 line 150.
Response-1: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Query-2: Correct the size of font on page 2from line 58-76.
Response-2: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Query-3: Please clarify and describe the aims, objectives and novelty of the study in the introduction section.
Response-3: The aims, objectives and novelty of the study are explained in the last paragraph of Introduction section.
Query-4: Correct typos on page 1 line 12 and 20.
Response-4: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Query-5: List of dimensionless quantities on page 3 and 4 line 110-113 is little bit confusing. Please prepare a table instead.
Response-5: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Query-6: There is a large number of equations in the manuscript. This is a research paper not a chapter of book, so please reduce the number of equations and describe more about the assumptions.
Response-6: Possible number equation are reduced according to the suggestion.
Query-7: Please clarify and discuss about the solver, method of solution for PDEs and convergence criterion. Please prepare the trend of residuals to prove the convergence of equations.
Response-7: Regular perturbation method is used in this study. For the convergence it is stated in reference [27] page 26 that the behavior of remainder must be smaller than the previous terms of the series. Another problem of the perturbed solution may the contribution of secular term. In this study no secular term is noticed up to O ( ). We added reference [27] for readers.
Query-8: section 3 is very short. Please rearrange the sections in the manuscript and add sub-sections for a better understanding.
Response-8: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript
Query-9: Correct text in table 1. What is the reference temperature and pressure for the parameters in this table?
Response-9: Table 1 is reconstructed and corrected using updated references [29-30]
Query-10: Please add a Discussion section into the manuscript and describe the main takeaways for the community, analyze graphs and justify the trends.
Response-10: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript
Query-11: The figures in the manuscript is very confusing. There are some figures before and some others after conclusion section that make no sense for the readers. Please add an appendix or integrate figure 6 to 14 into the body of manuscript before conclusion section.
Response-11: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript
Query-12: I think authors need to find another way to present figures in the manuscript. They have tried to prepare some zoom boxes to show difference between materials. However, this is not clear for the readers. Authors can change the scales or add multiple zoom boxes.
Response-12: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Query-13: authors just listed a large number of figures in the manuscript, but there is a lack of comprehensive description for each graph in the manuscript.
Response-13: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Query-14: Please add the percentage of water and cu/Al2O3/TiO2, temperature, and pressure in the title and legend of figures.
Response-14: Corrected accordingly in the revised manuscript. The values of water and cu/Al2O3/TiO2, temperature, and pressure are shown in Table according to the references [29-30]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1.The figure description in line 85, 207, 210, 211, 213, 217, 222, 223, 230, 231, 232, 235, 241, 242, 247, 248, 250, 252, 255, 258, 265, 273, and line 276 are different which are suggested to be modified in consistent form.
2.The key analyzed result are suggested to be mentioned in abstract.
3.For Concluding remarks, some critical data should be addressed in the 7 important findings.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Query-1: The figure description in line 85, 207, 210, 211, 213, 217, 222, 223, 230, 231, 232, 235, 241, 242, 247, 248, 250, 252, 255, 258, 265, 273, and line 276 are different which are suggested to be modified in consistent form.
Response-1: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Query-2 The key analyzed result are suggested to be mentioned in abstract.
Response-2: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Query-3 .For Concluding remarks, some critical data should be addressed in the 7 important findings.
Response-3: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Report on "Variable wall permeability effects on flow and heat transfer in a leaky channel containing water-based nanoparticles" by Shahzad et al., submitted to Processes.
- The introduction of previous studies in this field is appropriate, whereas the motivation behind the work is not very clearly stated. It seems to me that there are various studies that have investigated the fluid flow and heat transfer through a permeable channel with reabsorption across the walls in the presence of nanoparticles. How does this work differ from previous studies, e.g. type and volume of nanoparticles, channel geometry, etc.? Therefore, I would suggest the authors reframe some portions of the introduction to highlight the motivation and novelty of the work.
- Please explain the symbols of the physical properties as they first appear in Table 1 of the manuscript.
- It seems that the abstract section just includes one conclusion of the study that increasing the strength of nanoparticles volume fraction causes an enhanced velocity components, temperature, wall shear stress and Nusselt number at all the positions inside the channel. Please include other findings in the abstract section, and modify the language to make it clear and conciser.
- Will the size of nanoparticle play an effect on the results here?
- A number of formatting issues should be corrected, especially on some equations, units, and symbols that would prevent readers from properly understanding the manuscript. In addition, some texts have different font sizes, and some grammar, typing, and spelling errors need to be checked carefully.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Opinion1: The introduction of previous studies in this field is appropriate, whereas the motivation behind the work is not very clearly stated. It seems to me that there are various studies that have investigated the fluid flow and heat transfer through a permeable channel with reabsorption across the walls in the presence of nanoparticles. How does this work differ from previous studies, e.g. type and volume of nanoparticles, channel geometry, etc.? Therefore, I would suggest the authors reframe some portions of the introduction to highlight the motivation and novelty of the work.
Response-1: The introduction part is rewritten and added latest references [22-30].
Opinion2: Please explain the symbols of the physical properties as they first appear in Table 1 of the manuscript.
Response-1: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Opinion3: It seems that the abstract section just includes one conclusion of the study that increasing the strength of nanoparticles volume fraction causes an enhanced velocity components, temperature, wall shear stress and Nusselt number at all the positions inside the channel. Please include other findings in the abstract section, and modify the language to make it clear and conciser.
Response-1: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Opinion4:Will the size of nanoparticle play an effect on the results here?
Response-1: Yes it enhanced the temperature profile and rate of heat transfer, see abstract and conclusion part.
Opinion5: A number of formatting issues should be corrected, especially on some equations, units, and symbols that would prevent readers from properly understanding the manuscript. In addition, some texts have different font sizes, and some grammar, typing, and spelling errors need to be checked carefully.
Response-5: Amended accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Opinion: This research paper presents the effect of wall permeability on 2-D flow and heat transfer in a leaky channel with water based nano-fluid using the mathematical approach.
Mathematical approach is clearly addressed and the selection of nano particle such as Cu, Al2O3, and TiO2 is also very reasonable. However, some editorial errors and lack of explanation of physical meaning are observed as listed below. Also it is quite questionable for the material properties used in this study summarized in Table 1. The reviewer thought that the authors had used wrong density of Cu, Al2O3, and TiO2. For example, density of Cu is 3.94g/cm3 which is 3940 kg/m3 but the authors used 385 kg/m3 which is 10 times smaller than the real value. This problem is same for Al2O3, and TiO2.
After modification of this density, it seems that most of the manuscript from page 7 to 18 should be re-written and it’s same for the figures. It means that the conclusion might be changed.
Thus the reviewer believes that massive revision would be necessary for this manuscript. Therefore, would like to propose Reject for this manuscript.
Overall:
- Follow the editing guideline especially figures, reference, citation, and so on
- Unify font and size (line 58-76)
- Increase the resolution of all the figures (Currently too blur)
- Increase font size of axis scale (Currently too small)
- Unify the significant figures of all figures
Per Line: Please refer to the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Opinion: This research paper presents the effect of wall permeability on 2-D flow and heat transfer in a leaky channel with water based nano-fluid using the mathematical approach.
Mathematical approach is clearly addressed and the selection of nano particle such as Cu, Al2O3, and TiO2 is also very reasonable. However, some editorial errors and lack of explanation of physical meaning are observed as listed below. Also it is quite questionable for the material properties used in this study summarized in Table 1. The reviewer thought that the authors had used wrong density of Cu, Al2O3, and TiO2. For example, density of Cu is 3.94g/cm3 which is 3940 kg/m3 but the authors used 385 kg/m3 which is 10 times smaller than the real value. This problem is same for Al2O3, and TiO2.
After modification of this density, it seems that most of the manuscript from page 7 to 18 should be re-written and it’s same for the figures. It means that the conclusion might be changed.
Response The table is reconstructed using references [29-30]. The conclusion and discussion are rewritten and updated with the correct values of table. All the figures are revised according to the Table 1.
The manuscript is updated with latex and editing guidelines are followed. The size of figures are now, fonts are corrected. The introduction is updated according to the opinion. The references [17-19] are detailed for the readers. The width of the channel is assumed due to reference [8]. Yes we can take it unity also. The effect of volume fraction on velocity, temperature, wall shear stress and rate of heat transfer are discussed in the updated manuscript. In the updated manuscript are considered. The variation are drawn in all the figure considering .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
