Research on the internal flow and macroscopic characteristics of a diesel fuel injection process

Hua Xia

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255874

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 22, 2020
19 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Hongbing Ding, Editor PONE-D-20-28234 Research on the Internal Flow and Macroscopic Characteristics of Diesel Fuel Injection Progress PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xia, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Hongbing Ding, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Additional Editor Comments: Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I have completed the review of your manuscript and a summary is appended below. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing all reviewer comments. When resubmitting your manuscript, please carefully consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments, outline every change made point by point, and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Paper title: Research on the Internal Flow and Macroscopic Characteristics of a Diesel Fuel Injection Process The paper studied the internal flow and the macroscopic characteristics of a diesel fuel injection process. The topic is interesting, the results are discussed in detail. However, there are some flaws to be revised, also the organization is not proper. Here are the detailed comments: 1. The organization of paper needs to be adjusted. The authors use both CFD and experimental methods to study the topic, thus the research object (nozzle) as well as the studied conditions (in CFD, it is expressed as boundary conditions, in experiment, it is the experimental conditions, in either way, the detailed conditions should be the same). Consequently, the nozzle geometry (Fig. 1 and Table 1) and the studied conditions (Table 2) should not be placed in CFD part. 2. As I have mentioned, the nozzle structure and the studied conditions should be placed in another part. In addition, the CFD results and the experiment results should be clearly stated, rather than be confused with each other. 3. As the most results are obtained from experiment, only the “Internal flow” part uses the CFD results (if I understand correctly), I suggest the “Description of the CFD method” merges with the “Internal flow”. In this case, the readers can clearly know the CFD study is conducted for the internal flow analysis, not the spray analysis. In this case, the detailed CFD setup, eg., govern equations can choose not be listed. If the authors believe the CFD plays as important role, then more detailed CFD setup, eg., govern equations and CFD results validation, needs to be listed. 4. The authors separated the results by the effect of the injection and ambient pressures, in my opinion, it is not a good choice. The injection and ambient pressures work together to effect the orifice discharge coefficient and the spray characteristics. Therefore, the authors are suggested to discuss these two pressures together, especially the discharge coefficient, it is a function of the differential pressure. In addition, the subtitle “Internal flow” is not clear, maybe the “Volume fraction distribution” is better. 5. The results should be discussed more depth combined with the spray process and breakup mechanism. In addition, the important conclusions and explanations needs to be supported by the detailed results or the literature references, eg., in the beginning of Page 17 “which indicates that cavitation produces an increase in the spray cone angle, mainly due to broken cavitation bubbles, which induce many micro fluid jets and increase the radial velocity of the jet, thus increasing the spray cone angle, especially during the primary spray process”. How the authors draw the conclusion without any broken cavitation bubbles pictures or any references? There are many sentences not rigorous enough. 6. Fig.1 is not clear to show the detailed structure of the nozzle, the authors should considered the section map. 7. In general, the symbols indicating physical quantity symbols are in italics, and the others are in roman. Please check whether all the subscripts and symbols in this paper are used correctly. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255874.r001
Revision 1
25 May 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers Dear Editor-in-chief: We have considered the suggestions of the reviewers carefully and re-submitted the manuscript according to your kind advice. Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on the Internal Flow and Macroscopic Characteristics of a Diesel Fuel Injection Process”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following: Editor 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Response: Thank you for your comments. I have revised the article as required. Reviewer #1: Paper title: Research on the Internal Flow and Macroscopic Characteristics of a Diesel Fuel Injection Process The paper studied the internal flow and the macroscopic characteristics of a diesel fuel injection process. The topic is interesting, the results are discussed in detail. However, there are some flaws to be revised, also the organization is not proper. Here are the detailed comments: 1. The organization of paper needs to be adjusted. The authors use both CFD and experimental methods to study the topic, thus the research object (nozzle) as well as the studied conditions (in CFD, it is expressed as boundary conditions, in experiment, it is the experimental conditions, in either way, the detailed conditions should be the same). Consequently, the nozzle geometry (Fig. 1 and Table 1) and the studied conditions (Table 2) should not be placed in CFD part. Response: Thank you for your comments. I adjusted the position of the nozzle geometry and the studied conditions in the paper. For details, please refer to the revision of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 in the paper. 2. As I have mentioned, the nozzle structure and the studied conditions should be placed in another part. In addition, the CFD results and the experiment results should be clearly stated, rather than be confused with each other. Response：Thank you for your comments. The result of inner flow is obtained through CFD simulation. The macro spray characteristics are obtained through experiments. I have stated these clearly in our revised manuscript. 3. As the most results are obtained from experiment, only the “Internal flow” part uses the CFD results (if I understand correctly), I suggest the “Description of the CFD method” merges with the “Internal flow”. In this case, the readers can clearly know the CFD study is conducted for the internal flow analysis, not the spray analysis. In this case, the detailed CFD setup, eg., govern equations can choose not be listed. If the authors believe the CFD plays as important role, then more detailed CFD setup, eg., govern equations and CFD results validation, needs to be listed. Response：Thank you for your comments. Yes, only the internal flow part uses the CFD results, and the most results are obtained from experiment. I Combine "Description of CFD Method" with "Internal Flow" as you suggest. Therefore, the detailed CFD setup and govern equations were not listed in the manuscript. The simulation results and the experiment results were clearly stated in our revised manuscript. 4. The authors separated the results by the effect of the injection and ambient pressures, in my opinion, it is not a good choice. The injection and ambient pressures work together to effect the orifice discharge coefficient and the spray characteristics. Therefore, the authors are suggested to discuss these two pressures together, especially the discharge coefficient, it is a function of the differential pressure. In addition, the subtitle “Internal flow” is not clear, maybe the “Volume fraction distribution” is better. Response：Thank you for your comments. Firstly, the change of injection pressure and ambient back pressure have different effects on the cavitation and the downstream spray behaviors. In the case of high-pressure injection, as the injection pressure increases, the flow characteristics inside the nozzle will be affected. In the case of a certain fuel injection pressure, the change of the environmental back pressure has a great influence on the fuel spray. In order to explore the influence of the fuel injection pressure and the environmental back pressure on the nozzle internal flow characteristics and the fuel spray characteristics. That's why they were studied separately from each other. Secondary, the discharge coefficient is a function of the differential pressure, when we study the effectsof injection pressure or the back pressure on Cd, we always fix a constant pressure value, and only change the injection pressure or the back pressure.The effect is the same as changing the differential pressure. Meanwhile, the internal flow has been changed with vapor volume fraction distribution. 5. The results should be discussed more depth combined with the spray process and breakup mechanism. In addition, the important conclusions and explanations needs to be supported by the detailed results or the literature references, eg., in the beginning of Page 17 “which indicates that cavitation produces an increase in the spray cone angle, mainly due to broken cavitation bubbles, which induce many micro fluid jets and increase the radial velocity of the jet, thus increasing the spray cone angle, especially during the primary spray process”. How the authors draw the conclusion without any broken cavitation bubbles pictures or any references? There are many sentences not rigorous enough. Response：Thank you for your comments. Based on your opinion, I have carefully revised the results analysis, interpretation and relevant conclusions in the full text. Combining with the questions you raised on page 17, the spraying process and the crushing mechanism, the results in the paper are analyzed and compared with the conclusions of the references, and the references are marked in the corresponding positions of the article. See the red part in the article. 6. Fig.1 is not clear to show the detailed structure of the nozzle, the authors should considered the section map. Response：Thank you for your comments. Figure 1 is a cross-sectional view of the nozzle needle according to the parts drawing, and the schematic diagram of the nozzle structure has been modified. The enlarged schematic diagram of the nozzle hole has been added and the relevant geometric parameters have been marked. And add Table 1 to supplement the nozzle structure parameters. The relevant content has been revised in the paper and marked in red. 7. In general, the symbols indicating physical quantity symbols are in italics, and the others are in roman. Please check whether all the subscripts and symbols in this paper are used correctly. Response：Thank you for your comments. Sorry for our unclear writing, we have check the symbols and revised in our revised manuscript. We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments, and We would like to submit for your kind consideration.We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely Corresponding author Name :Hua Xia E-mail: 250930192@qq.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255874.r002
7 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Hongbing Ding, Editor PONE-D-20-28234R1 Research on the Internal Flow and Macroscopic Characteristics of Diesel Fuel Injection Progress PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xia, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Hongbing Ding, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following minor revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing all reviewer comments. Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The revised paper is largely improved compared with the original version, and the most problems I mentioned have been addressed. I have some comments to further improve the quality of the paper. 1. The subsection title “The boundary conditions” is not proper. As I have mentioned, the boundary conditions are the exclusive expression in CFD simulation, it includes the boundary setup in CFD. Maybe “The groups of operational conditions” is better. In addition, the injection pressure and ambient pressure are strongly suggested to be named with the variable symbol, for example, Pin and P0, as well as in the whole text and the figures. It is more clear and readable. 2. The variable symbols are not rigorous, please check the paper thoroughly to ensure all the subscript and symbol are identical. For example, K-factor in equation (1), it is K or k？In equation (2), P should be italic, the symbol “Cd” in Fig. 6 should be identical with it in equation (2). 3. The captions of the figure is not clear, they should be self-evidence. The detailed operational conditions of the results should be given clearly. For example, what is the ambient pressure in Fig.10？The detailed information should be given. In addition, Fig. 7 has typographical error. As I have mentioned, the corresponding variable symbols are suggested to add. 4. The logical relation and relevance between the experimental and numerical results should be more clearer. 5. There are still some grammatical or typographical errors, please check it clearly to avoid it. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255874.r003
Revision 2
23 Jul 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers Dear Editor and reviewers Thank you for your view letter and the comments concerning our manuscript entitled ‘Research on the Internal Flow and Macroscopic Characteristics of a Diesel Fuel Injection Process’. Those comments are all very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are as following: Reviewer #1: The revised paper is largely improved compared with the original version, and the most problems I mentioned have been addressed. I have some comments to further improve the quality of the paper. 1. The subsection title “The boundary conditions” is not proper. As I have mentioned, the boundary conditions are the exclusive expression in CFD simulation, it includes the boundary setup in CFD. Maybe “The groups of operational conditions” is better. In addition, the injection pressure and ambient pressure are strongly suggested to be named with the variable symbol, for example, Pin and P0, as well as in the whole text and the figures. It is more clear and readable. Response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised these in our revised manuscript. is the injection pressure, is the ambient pressure. We have changed the original title to “The groups of operational conditions”. 2. The variable symbols are not rigorous, please check the paper thoroughly to ensure all the subscript and symbol are identical. For example, K-factor in equation (1), it is K or k？In equation (2), P should be italic, the symbol “Cd” in Fig. 6 should be identical with it in equation (2). Response: Thank you for your comments. Sorry for our unclear writing, it is K; We have revised these in our revised manuscript. We have checked the full text to prevent similar errors. 3. The captions of the figure is not clear, they should be self-evidence. The detailed operational conditions of the results should be given clearly. For example, what is the ambient pressure in Fig.10？The detailed information should be given. In addition, Fig. 7 has typographical error. As I have mentioned, the corresponding variable symbols are suggested to add. Response: Thank you for your comments. The ambient pressure in Fig.10 is 5MPa, we have added in the manuscript. We have modified the titles of several figures to make them more accurate. 4. The logical relation and relevance between the experimental and numerical results should be more clearer. Response: Thank you for your comments. The computational results of inner flow in nozzle orifice are used to analyze the mechanism and reason of the difference between the experimental results of spray characteristics. This part was explained in the part of spray macroscopic characteristics. 5. There are still some grammatical or typographical errors, please check it clearly to avoid it. Response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the grammatical or typographical errors in our revised manuscript ensure that readers can clearly understand the paper. We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and we have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments, and the words in red font were the modified content in the revised manuscript. We would like to submit for your kind consideration. We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely Corresponding author Name: Hua Xia E-mail: 250930192@qq.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255874.r004
27 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Hongbing Ding, Editor Research on the Internal Flow and Macroscopic Characteristics of Diesel Fuel Injection Progress PONE-D-20-28234R2 Dear Dr. Xia, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Hongbing Ding, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors have done a good job in revising the manuscript. Now it can be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255874.r005
Formally Accepted
17 Sep 2021 Acceptance Letter - Hongbing Ding, Editor PONE-D-20-28234R2 Research on the Internal Flow and Macroscopic Characteristics of a Diesel Fuel Injection Process Dear Dr. Xia: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Hongbing Ding Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255874.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .