Experimental Investigation on OBD Signal and PN Emission Characteristics by Damaged-DPF Types of 2.0 L Diesel Vehicle
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work has the potential to be published in Applied Sciences. However, I have the following comments that the authors should implement in the revised manuscript before publication.
1) Introduction - The sentence “During regeneration, PM combusts within a filter and is released as CO2 and H2O.”
should be corrected to
“During regeneration, PM combusts within a filter and is released as CO, CO2 and H2O. The molar ratio CO2/CO is much higher in the case of catalytic regeneration than thermal regeneration [x, xx, xxx].” - with [x] = Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, Volume 197, 2016, Pages 116-124; [xx] = AIChE Journal, Volume 63, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 3442-3449; [xxx] = Topics in Catalysis, Volume 64, 2021, Pages 256-269.
2) Introduction - The connection between the aim of the work and the literature gaps should be better described, thus giving more strength to the reason behind this work.
3) In the discussion, the practical impact of the results obtained in this work should be better highlighted. This should also be done in the “Conclusions” section.
4) Conclusions - The authors should also give an outlook on future research work.
I’m willing to review the revised manuscript.
Author Response
The authors deeply appreciate reviewer's comments.
Please open and confirm the attachment (PDF).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Figure 8. The results between left and right screens are not ordered in the same manner.
Author Response
The authors deeply appreciate reviewer's comments.
Please open and confirm the attachment (PDF).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have not reported the physic explanation to the abstract section. The work should be revised reporting more link between the physics/thermodynamic and the engine out and performance detected.
The authors should improve the readability and scientific soundness, I regret to inform that the manuscript cannot be accepted in this present form, many efforts are necessary to present the manuscript as a novel research paper.
It is not clear to the reader the main message of your manuscript. Please improve the scientific soundness for future submission.The plot’s readability and quality are very low.
Author Response
The authors deeply appreciate reviewer's comments.
Please open and confirm the attachment (PDF).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this study, the results of "An experimental investigation on OBD signal and PN emission 3 characteristics by damaged-DPF types of 2.0L diesel vehicles" were presented. The paper's subject matter is relevant to the scope of the journal.
The title of the manuscript is consistent with the content of the manuscript. Literature research should be strengthened, especially in the area of sustainability of internal combustion engines as it is the key challenger to the use of further ICE's. A good example could be http://cogsust.com/index.php/real/article/view/7 to present the importance of sustainability in mobility.
EGR technology should be better highlighted in the introduction as it has a huge role in emissions and particulate filters.
Could be the selected test vehicle handled as a "statistical average" vehicle? For which market?
Could be the result extended to other vehicles / other manufacturers' vehicles?
Are the results relevant/usable outside Korea?
Author Response
The authors deeply appreciate reviewer's comments.
Please open and confirm the attachment (PDF).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
The reviewed manuscript is very interesting. However, in my opinion, the manuscript in its current version should not be published.
In order to improve the quality of the article, I propose to take into account detailed remarks:
1) Title: I propose to change the title as: An experimental investigation on OBD signal and PN emission characteristics by damaged-DPF types of 2.0L diesel engine
2) Introduction: Line 37 - Does PM refer only to particles less than 1 micrometer in diameter?
3) Editorial and linguistic revisions to the content of the manuscript would be beneficial. The article contains many errors, such as:
The authors often use the term "driving test," which refers more to a driving license test and should be changed;
Other language errors: spaces are missing between words in many places (e.g. particulate(soot), actuator(duty ratio), DR(duty tatio)max); lay-out.
4) Line 186: Figure caption (b) should refer to after-treatment system rather than exhaust system.
5) Table 2: The unit m^(-1) refers to Light extinction coefficient rather than smoke density.
6) Figure 8: The figure is poorly readable - it might benefit from being enlarged.
7) Figure 8: The instantaneous values of the measured quantities are shown at different points in the KD-147 test. why? Perhaps it would be more advantageous to present for all the tested filters at a specific point in the test? Also, why were the orders of measured quantities not the same for all cases? This makes it somewhat difficult to analyze the results.
8) Table 6: It would be beneficial to supplement the units presented in the table of measured quantities.
9) Table 6: Are the values in the table determined from all 4 tests? As for the maximum values, they may depend on the driver's momentary load (its change). Therefore, whether taking maximum values is appropriate. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to use the average values of the entire 4 repetitions of the KD-147 cycle?
10) Table 6: While the air-flow mass values differ to a large extent, the others differ to a small extent, relative to the uncertainty of their measurement. This confirms my remark earlier - basing it on a single value seems to lack precision.
11) Figure 9 (a): no description in the speed legend. The description of the speed axis overlaps with the values - it should be shifted. What does the unit (mg/st) mean?
12) Figure 10: What was the thermal condition of the engine at the beginning of each test?
13) Figure 10: The description of the vertical axis (T3) should be corrected.
14) Figure 12: Is the description of the vertical axis correct?
15) Figure 13, 14 and 15: The PN unit should be supplemented with a "#" sign.
16) Figure 16: Are the values proposed in the algorithm specified over the entire cycle or in a specific area? Do they not depend on momentary changes in load (accelerator pedal pressure) caused by the driver? What reference values are specified by the authors?
17) Figure 16: The values of relative differences (e.g. Qref-Qmax)/Qref) should rather be expressed as an absolute value. For the formulas so adopted, the proposed diagnostic parameters, we can also get negative values.
18) In the conclusion, it would be beneficial to point out the weaknesses of the proposed methodology. It would be beneficial to point out directions for further work to improve the proposed methodology.
Best regards
Author Response
The authors deeply appreciate reviewer's comments.
Please open and confirm the attachment (PDF).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments in a satisfactory manner. Overall, the manuscript has been improved after revisions. Therefore, it can be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences.
At the proofing stage, the authors should implement the following corrections:
1) Reference [6]: Please, add “Saliva, A.” between “Lisi, L.” and “Di Benedetto, A.”;
2) Reference [8]: Please, change the list of authors to “Di Sarli, V.; Landi, G.; Di Benedetto, A.; Lisi, L.”.
Reviewer 3 Report
I had already rejected this manuscript. In my opinion, the innovation is too low to deserve publication.
