Next Article in Journal
Hybrid Nanofluid Flow Induced by an Oscillating Disk Considering Surface Catalyzed Reaction and Nanoparticles Shape Factor
Next Article in Special Issue
Thermal and Tribological Properties Enhancement of PVE Lubricant Modified with SiO2 and TiO2 Nanoparticles Additive
Previous Article in Journal
Novel Fluorescent Probe Based on Rare-Earth Doped Upconversion Nanomaterials and Its Applications in Early Cancer Detection
Previous Article in Special Issue
Natural Convection Water/Glycerin–CNT Fractionalized Nanofluid Flow in a Channel with Isothermal and Ramped Conditions
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Computational Analysis for Bioconvection of Microorganisms in Prandtl Nanofluid Darcy–Forchheimer Flow across an Inclined Sheet

Nanomaterials 2022, 12(11), 1791; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12111791
by Jianfeng Wang 1, Zead Mustafa 2,*, Imran Siddique 3,*, Muhammad Ajmal 3, Mohammed M. M. Jaradat 2, Saif Ur Rehman 3, Bagh Ali 4,5 and Hafiz Muhammad Ali 6,7,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Nanomaterials 2022, 12(11), 1791; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12111791
Submission received: 15 February 2022 / Revised: 18 March 2022 / Accepted: 21 March 2022 / Published: 24 May 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Computational Analysis for Bioconvection of Microorgansims in Prandtl

Nanofluid Darcy-Forchheimer Flow Across an Inclined Sheet

The paper must be revised before the final acceptance:

  1. Firstly, the English language must be improved because you can see in the title, “Microorgansims” must be Microorganisms”
  2. What is meant by stratification in boundary layer flow?
  3. Right-hand side of equation (2) is not correct. Make the changes.
  4. Explain the Prandtl nanofluid, its physical significance, its all components of stress in detail. Bibliographic reference is not mandatory if you provide the right answer.
  5. At the end of the introduction, please expound on the new aspect of your work.
  6. Please utilize up-to-date and recent studies in the literature review to help the reader understand.
  7. Conclusions may be more specific and to the point; take a look and contemplate it.
  8. For those obtained results in this paper, authors should give some explanations in biology because they considered the bioconvection flow.

Author Response

Authors Response to the comments of Reviewer # 1
Dear respected Reviewer, We are thankful to you for your positive comments to improve our manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to the points and highlights the changes with color. Please look at the revised version.


Reviewer Comment# 1
Firstly, the English language must be improved because you can see in the title, “Microorgansims” must be Microorganisms”

Authors’ Response:
Done. Please look at the revised manuscript title. We update the title according to the wise suggestion 

Reviewer Comment# 2
What is mean by stratification in boundary layer flow

Authors’ Response:
The notion of stratification is essential in lakes and ponds. It is important to control the temperature stratification and concentration differences of hydrogen and oxygen in such environments as they may directly affect the growth rate of all cultured species. Also, the analysis of thermal stratification is important for solar engineering because higher energy efficiency can be achieved with better 
stratification. Researchers have shown that thermal stratification in energy storage may considerably increase system performance.

Reviewer Comment# 3
The right-hand side of equation (2) is not correct. Make the changes.

Authors’ Response:
Done. Please look at the revised manuscript. We update according to the wise suggestion

Reviewer Comment# 4
Explain the Prandtl nanofluid, its physical significance, its all components of stress in detail. Bibliographic reference is not mandatory if you provide the right answer.

Authors’ Response:
Done. Please look at the revised manuscript introduction.

Reviewer Comment# 5
At the end of the introduction, please expound on the new aspect of your work.

Authors’ Response:
Done. Please look at the revised manuscript's last paragraph of the introduction section.

Reviewer Comment# 6 
Please utilize up-to-date and recent studies in the literature review to help the reader understand.

Authors’ Response:
Done. Please look at the revised manuscript introduction and references section. We update the manuscript according to the valuable suggestion.

Reviewer Comment# 7
Conclusions may be more specific and to the point; take a look and contemplate it.

Authors’ Response:
The conclusion section is modified as suggested.

Reviewer Comment# 8
For those obtained results in this paper, authors should give some explanations in biology because they considered the bioconvection flow.

Authors’ Response:
Done. Please see the introduction section which contains the paragraph about microorganisms. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have analyzed the bioconvection phenomena during Prandtl nanofluid flow over a stretching sheet. They have used Range-Kutta techniques to solve the system. The problem is well defined. However, I have some minor observations

  1. Include a nomenclature.
  2. Include some recent and relevant articles on the bioconvection and Darcy-Forchheimer flow model. Some of them are

International Journal of Biomathematics, (2021) 2150099, https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524521500996 ; Journal of Heat Transfer - Trans of ASME, 143 (2021), 031201,  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4048946 ; International Journal of Ambient Energy, 2020, 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2020.1818126 ;  International Journal of Applied and Computational Mathematics, 5 (2019) 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40819-019-0705-0 ; Alexandria Engineering Journal, 60 (2021) 4067-4083, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.02.010 ; Heat Transfer, 51 (2022) 490-533, https://doi.org/10.1002/htj.22317. 

  1. Figure 1 is not clear.
  2. The authors need to check the boundary condition (6) and need to explain how to get the equation (12) from (6).
  3. In fig 9(b), the figure for Sc = 0.1 does not converge quickly. Any reason behind it?
  4. Authors need to include the influence of Nn(x) for different parameters.
  5. References need to write in a proper format.
  6. The results and discussion part need to improve by including some physical significance in support of the nature of the graphs.
  7. Some typo errors or grammatical mistakes were observed in the paper.

Overall, the manuscript is well written. Graphs are adequate. The manuscript may accept for the publication after a minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted

Author Response

We are thankful to you for your positive comments. 

Back to TopTop