Numerical simulation of the fine kinetics of dust reduction using high-speed aerosols

Deji Jing; Jichuang Ma; Tian Zhang; Shaocheng Ge; ShuaiShuai Ren; Mingxing Ma

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286101

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 14, 2022
3 May 2023 Decision Letter - Hongbing Ding, Editor PONE-D-22-33806Numerical simulation of the fine kinetics of dust reduction using high-speed aerosolsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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 17 2023 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: https://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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: jdj-National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Fund Project (51704146) jdj-Liaoning Provincial Natural Science Foundation (2020-MS-304) jdj-Liaoning provincial funding for scientific research projects (LJK0323) zt-China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2022M11456) Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: NO authors have competing interests Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments: 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. [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: The subject of the study is the single-particle collisional wetting process of micron-sized droplets on dust of different typical particle sizes in a high-speed airflow, which is investigated using a finite element-dynamic mesh modelling approach based on the three-phase flow theory. The reliability of the simulation is adequately given in terms of inter-particle forces, airflow streamlines and hydrophobic phenomena. A comparative study has been carried out to obtain the optimum wetting particle size ratio and collision angle for different typical particle sizes of dust. I think the results of the study can provide an important reference for the study of pneumatic spray capture of micron-sized particles. However, There are some minor problems with the article which should be slightly revised, I support the publication of this paper. 1.In this article, variables should be used in the correct format, page 10, paragraph 3 of the article. 2.Three typical particle sizes of dust particles are selected for study in the article, and the reasons for selecting the particle sizes PM2.5, PM10 and PM20 for study. 3.On page 19 of the article, heading 4.2, "At 1 µs, the relative motion velocity decreased to 1.5~2m/s." What does the relative motion velocity mean here. 4.In heading 4.3 on page 20 of the article, select four specific c values Please explain the reasons for the selection 5.The relative velocity between gas and solid is 30m/s to 100m/s. What is the basis for choosing this velocity. 6.In this paper, the collision between a single droplet and a single dust is studied. it is suggested to change " droplets and dust particle" to " droplet and dust particle" 7.The fonts in Fig. 13 and 14 should be adjusted to the same format. 8.What is the basis for the choice of the relative velocity between gas and solid of 30m/s to 100m/s set in the text? ****** 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.0286101.r001
Revision 1
8 May 2023 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Numerical simulation of the fine kinetics of dust reduction using high-speed aerosols” (ID: PONE-D-22-33806). All comments are very important and they are great support for our scientific research work. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction (Revised portion are marked in red in the text). The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Reviewer 1 The subject of the study is the single-particle collisional wetting process of micron-sized droplets on dust of different typical particle sizes in a high-speed airflow, which is investigated using a finite element-dynamic mesh modelling approach based on the three-phase flow theory. The reliability of the simulation is adequately given in terms of inter-particle forces, airflow streamlines and hydrophobic phenomena. A comparative study has been carried out to obtain the optimum wetting particle size ratio and collision angle for different typical particle sizes of dust. I think the results of the study can provide an important reference for the study of pneumatic spray capture of micron-sized particles. However, There are some minor problems with the article which should be slightly revised, I support the publication of this paper. Answers: Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revisions of our manuscript. We have studied the reviewer's comments carefully and have made revisions that have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. Comment 1)In this article, variables should be used in the correct format, page 10, paragraph 3 of the article. Answers: Thank you for your comments.I have changed the variables to the correct format .( Page 10) Comment 2)Three typical particle sizes of dust particles are selected for study in the article, and the reasons for selecting the particle sizes PM2.5, PM10 and PM20 for study. Answers: Thank you for your comments.The necessary boundary conditions for numerical simulations are described in the text. Three types of dust, PM2.5, PM10 and PM20, were chosen because they are more hazardous to humans in the micron range and the differences between the three are more pronounced all being representative of the dust. Comment 3)On page 19 of the article, heading 4.2, "At 1 µs, the relative motion velocity decreased to 1.5~2m/s." What does the relative motion velocity mean here. Answers: Thank you for your comments. The relative velocity here refers to the relative velocity between the dust particles and the water mist particles after their collision, i.e. the difference in velocity between the two particles.( Fig.9 has been modified accordingly) Comment 4)In heading 4.3 on page 20 of the article, select four specific c values Please explain the reasons for the selection Answers: Thank you for your comments. Four specific c values are selected for four collision angles, corresponding to 0°, 15°, 30° and 45°, and the range of collision angles is divided into four equal parts, and then four representative values are selected to better analyse the influence of collision angle on wettability and to obtain conclusions Comment 5)The relative velocity between gas and solid is 30m/s to 100m/s. What is the basis for choosing this velocity. Answers: Thank you for your comments.The main simulation in this paper is the flow field of high speed air movement, and the velocity of water mist at the exit of the supersonic atomisation nozzle can reach about 50m/s, so the relative velocity between gas and solid is selected from 30m/s to 100m/s, mainly to study the dust trapping of water mist particles moving at high speed. The effect of relative velocity on the dust trapping mechanism is effectively studied through simulation Comment 6)In this paper, the collision between a single droplet and a single dust is studied. it is suggested to change " droplets and dust particle" to " droplet and dust particle" Answers: Thank you for your comments.I have changed the variables to the correct format . Comment 7)The fonts in Fig. 13 and 14 should be adjusted to the same format. Answers: Thank you for your comments.I have changed the variables to the correct format .( Fig. 13 and 14) Comment 8)In heading 4.3 on page 20 of the article, select four specific c values Please explain the reasons for the selection Answers: Thank you for your comments.The authors mainly study the collision of dust and water mist airflow in high speed movement. Although the collision of engineering dust and water mist airflow cannot reach a high relative velocity at present, the authors find the conclusion of dust reduction efficiency in the flow field of high speed airflow movement through simulation research, which provides the theoretical basis for future research and development of dust reduction equipment, the greater the relative velocity the better the wetting effect and increase the dust capture efficiency. It is believed that future on-site dust reduction equipment can reach the collision situation of the high-speed airflow field, and the authors will also conduct future research on dust reduction equipment based on theoretical studies. Special thanks to the reviewers for the questions raised, and the authors will conduct deeper research on the relevant contents in future studies. Thank you very much for your suggestion! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Technical Check Results.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286101.r002
9 May 2023 Decision Letter - Hongbing Ding, Editor Numerical simulation of the fine kinetics of dust reduction using high-speed aerosols PONE-D-22-33806R1 Dear Dr. Zhang, 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.0286101.r003
Formally Accepted
12 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Hongbing Ding, Editor PONE-D-22-33806R1 Numerical simulation of the fine kinetics of dust reduction using high-speed aerosols Dear Dr. Zhang: 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.0286101.r004

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 .