Dear Dr. Hosseinzadeh Samani,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: I suggest a major revision is required as per the comments made by the reviewers as below :

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 07 2025 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.

• 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,

Mohammad Yusuf, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

The Research Council of Shahrekord University is thankfully acknowledged for the financial support to carry out the work (grant No:02GRN1M1796).

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Reviewer Reports:

I recommend a major amendment at this level.

General comments:

The manuscript entitled “Optimization and CFD-RSM Analysis of Single Orifice Reactor for Enhanced Biodiesel Production” was reviewed. The work carried out in the manuscript is interesting and aimed at optimizing and analyzing a single-orifice oscillatory flow reactor using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)-Response Surface Method (RSM) to enhance biodiesel production from sunflower oil. Better connect your research findings to previous works published in PONE and in other top journals. Please also remove ANY lumped references. Please define each of them separately to avoid inappropriate citations. It is recommended that the authors work with a science editor who is proficient in the native English language to improve the organization and delivery of some portions of the manuscript. Too many abbreviations are used in the analysis and results. I recommend a nomenclature section for the abbreviations and variables used throughout the passage. The journal's author guidelines and instructions should be followed in preparing the revised version. Other main remarks that, in my opinion, need attention are the following:

Detailed comments:

The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. In the abstract, please add an indication of the achievements from your study that are relevant to the journal's scope. Please be concise—maximum 1-2 lines.

The review of the literature needs more updating with works to have a clear and concise state-of-the-art analysis. This should more clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to the paper's goals. While the general introduction is acceptable, the state-of-the-art review that follows is very difficult to understand, and no specific thoughts can be inferred. The major defect of this study is the debate or argument is not clearly stated. The relevant reference may be of interest to the author according to below: Development of Heterogeneous/Nanocatalysts in Biodiesel Production; Magnetic graphene oxide supported tin oxide (SnO) nanocomposite as a heterogeneous catalyst for biodiesel production from soybean oil; Exploring Waste-Derived Catalysts for Sustainable Biodiesel Production: A Path Towards Renewable Energy; Please eliminate the use of redundant words. Eg. In this way, Recently, Respectively, therefore, currently, thus, hence, finally, to do this, first, in order, however, moreover, nowadays, today, consequently, in addition, additionally, furthermore. Please revise all similar cases, as removing these term(s) would not significantly affect the meaning of the sentence. This will keep the manuscript as CONCISE as possible. Please check ALL. Avoid beginning or ending a sentence with one or a few words; they are usually redundant. Kindly revise all.

Some sections could benefit from clearer explanations, especially the methodology. Please avoid having one heading after another with no discussion in between, as in the case of Sections 2 and 2.1. Kindly inspect the entire document for similar instances and revise accordingly. Please add in the beginning your scientific hypothesis. In the course of describing the performed actions, please provide reader guidance, sufficient for understanding why those actions have been performed. The percentage purity and company of all reagents/chemicals utilized must be reported. Provide more detail on the CFD parameters used. For instance, what turbulence model was applied, and why was it chosen? Clarify the selection and optimization process for the reactor parameters. A flowchart might help enhance understanding.

This is the weakest section of the entire manuscript. All the findings of the current work need to be compared and discussed with the results of other researchers finding instead of having a general comparison with other researchers' works. The authors should perform a comparison between the forecasting results. In your discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review. The figures and tables are adequately presented, but some graphs lack adequate labeling or legends, making it difficult to interpret the data fully. While the authors mention experimental validation of their simulations, further details on the experimental setup, conditions, and results would strengthen the manuscript. The discussion provides a good overview of findings, but it could be enhanced by comparing results with previous studies in the field. This would contextualize the significance of the findings and demonstrate their contribution to the field.

Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlights the novelty of your study. In the conclusions, in addition to summarising the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning compared with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work.

Ensure all cited works are up to date and relevant. Some references are older; consider including more recent studies to enhance the literature review.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Review: Optimization and CFD-RSM Analysis of Single Orifice Reactor for Enhanced Biodiesel Production

1. Key Scientific Contributions and Strengths

This study presents a well-structured approach to optimizing a single-orifice oscillatory flow reactor (OFR) for biodiesel production, utilizing Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The combination of fluid dynamic modeling and experimental validation is a strong aspect, particularly the attempt to correlate Turbulent Kinetic Energy (TKE), vorticity, and biodiesel yield. One of the major highlights is that the optimized reactor conditions (12.12 Hz frequency, d₀/D = 0.4-, and 10 mm baffle spacing) led to an 83% biodiesel conversion, showing the potential of oscillatory reactors for efficient mixing and mass transfer. The methodology, which involves varying baffle diameter ratio, frequency, and spacing, then using RSM to derive optimal conditions, is sound. By sharing their observation on the effects of pressure drop, vorticity, and turbulence intensity, the study contributes to efficient design of reactors for biodiesel yield.

2. Revisions/clarifications required

2.1. Lack of Clear Justification for Optimal Conditions

The manuscript states that the optimized reactor parameters were a frequency of 12.12 Hz, a baffle diameter ratio (d₀/D) of 0.4, and a baffle spacing of 10 mm (Abstract). However, it does not clearly explain why these conditions were chosen over others within the tested range. In Table 2, the study varied d₀/D between 0.4 - 0.8, frequency between 5 - 15 Hz, and baffle spacing between 3 - 7 mm. But the manuscript does not explicitly state how biodiesel yield varied with these parameters, making it unclear whether these values were chosen purely based on TKE, vorticity, or a trade-off with biodiesel yield.

2.2. Insufficient Discussion on Practical Limitations and Industrial Feasibility

The study convincingly shows that higher frequency and increased turbulence enhance biodiesel yield, but it does not discuss real-world operational limitations of oscillatory flow reactors. High-frequency oscillations may improve mixing, but they also increase energy consumption. There is no mention of whether the energy cost associated with high oscillation frequencies offsets the gain in biodiesel yield.

2.3. CFD Model Limitations and Assumptions

The manuscript models the reactor using a single-phase flow assumption with the k-ε turbulence model (Section 2.3.1). While k-ε is widely used, it struggles with near-wall turbulence predictions and may underpredict the effects of flow separation around baffles. The authors should briefly explain why they did not use a k-ω SST model which would provide a more accurate representation of turbulence and vortex shedding.

2.4. Experimental Validation Lacks GC Details

The experimental validation section (2.5) states that biodiesel yield was measured using Gas Chromatography (GC), but does not provide details such as: Gc sample preparation? the general settings of the GC? Specifications of the GC used? This will help with the reproducibility and comparison of results.

3. Declaration

I could not correlate the figure discussions to figures as the figures were not attached to the manuscript.

4. Recommendation

This manuscript presents a valuable contribution to the field of biodiesel reactor optimization and should be accepted for publication after the minor revisions are concisely done.

Reviewer #3: Paper Title: Optimization and CFD-RSM Analysis of Single Orifice Reactor for Enhanced Biodiesel Production

Journal Title: PLOS ONE

Manuscript No.: PONE-D-25-06866

Article type: Research Article

The present investigation, titled “Optimization and CFD-RSM Analysis of Single Orifice Reactors for Enhanced Biodiesel Production,” demonstrates the potential of single orifice reactors to enhance biodiesel production through improved turbulance and mixing efficiency. Further, the optimal dimensions of the reactor design were determined using numerical simulations and experimental analysis. role of O-H bond scission in ethanol steam reforming is emphasized. The topic is relevant given the increasing global interest in sustainable energy solutions and the pivotal role that biodiesel is expected to play in the transition towards a clean energy future. However, there are a few areas where the manuscript could be further improved with minor revisions:

1. Design the Abstract part, and it must be more informative by including more mathematical findings and more powerful explanations (For e.g., also discuss the parameters effect on biodiesel yield). Please be concise—maximum 1-2 lines.

2. The author should use new and more references in the introduction (2024, 2023, 2022 , …).

3. For consistency, write the abbreviation of the terminology and use these abbreviations throughout the manuscript to avoid repetition of terminologies [e.g., turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), computational fluid dynamics (CFD), etc…].

4. In between the words, the capital words have been used. Please revise these.

5. In the result discussion section, the authors discuss the result but mention a few outdated references. Please discuss your results with previous recent studies.

6. Can you explain the statistical procedures used to ensure reliable and accurate findings in the RSM modeling?

7. Citations are included but could be better integrated into the narrative. Some sections might benefit from additional references to support claims or provide further reading.

8. The author should consider adding references from the past few years (2020 onward) to reflect the latest developments in the field.

9. In Table 1, author, please check the values of “the ratio of baffle diameter to reactor diameter” (For e.g., it is 0.4-0.8 or 0/4-0/8)?

10. Please check all the references cited in the text carefully and correct the inconsistency (For e.g., Line 554, check the reference format, i.e., Sreenivasan & Vedantam, 2024).

11. A professional proofread should be conducted again for the whole manuscript due to many typos.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript_Review.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE comments.docx

Dear Dr. Hosseinzadeh Samani,

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 27 2025 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.

• 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,

Mohammad Yusuf, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

After revieweing the review reports of all the reviewers; I recommend major revision at this stage.

The author is suggested to re-check and address the queries that are raised by the reviewer in detail as per reviewer's suggestion.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Reviewer Reports:

I have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript entitled "Optimization and CFD-RSM Analysis of Single Orifice Reactor for Enhanced Biodiesel Production". The paper has been improved only in a few sections and can not be accepted at this stage. I appreciate your effort to improve your manuscript; however, deeper corrections would be required before its publication. Please, one more time, check all my previous comments and submit them with a highlights version. Also, give the accurate location in the revised version. The methods are not adequately explained. The parameter of enhancement rate does not add value to the discussion. The discussion of the results is vague. It is better not to use the first person's pronoun. Do not use "we, us, or our" throughout the paper. Redaction and English grammar need to be revised. Some areas still require clarification, strengthening, and additional context to fully appreciate the novelty and robustness of the work.

Please also remove ANY lumped references. Please define each of them separately to avoid inappropriate citations.

What is the unique contribution of this paper? The indication of this feature should start from the abstract. Otherwise, not too many readers will bother reading the paper after looking at the abstract. The abstract does not work well. It narrates activities. A good abstract should address these issues: what are you trying to do, why, what you found, and what is the significance of your findings.

The introduction section should follow the state of the art of this field and review what has been done to support the research gap and the significance of this study. Please improve the state-of-the-art overview to clearly show the progress beyond the state of the art. The lack of proper justification creates the wrong impression that the authors are unaware of the recent developments. These are a few good examples for your reference: Development of Heterogeneous/Nanocatalysts in Biodiesel Production; Magnetic graphene oxide supported tin oxide (SnO) nanocomposite as a heterogeneous catalyst for biodiesel production from soybean oil; Exploring Waste-Derived Catalysts for Sustainable Biodiesel Production: A Path Towards Renewable Energy; Please improve the aim of the introduction.

Expand the description of the experimental setup, including specifics such as reactor dimensions, operating conditions, and chemical reagent purity. Providing quantitative comparisons between CFD predictions and experimental results (biodiesel yield, reaction conversion rates) with statistical analysis will substantiate the validity of the simulation approach.

While the optimised conditions are well-presented, the manuscript should explicitly clarify how the specific values (frequency of 12.12 Hz, d₀/D of 0.4, and baffle spacing of 10 mm) were selected from the tested ranges. Including a brief discussion on the trade-offs between turbulence metrics (TKE, vorticity) and biodiesel yield, supported by data or graphs, will strengthen the rationale behind these choices.

The discussion section would benefit from a more detailed comparison of your results with recent studies in similar reactor designs or biodiesel production processes. Highlighting how your optimized parameters outperform or align with existing literature will better position your findings within the current scientific landscape. Specify the turbulence model used (k-ε, k-ω, LES), along with justification for its selection. Discuss how mesh independence and boundary conditions were determined to ensure simulation accuracy.

The conclusion is pretty generic and fails to provide any improvement in the existing knowledge base. The conclusion should be concise and to the point, indicating the application of the work. Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study. In the conclusion, emphasize the practical implications of your optimized reactor design, especially in terms of scalability, environmental benefits, and potential integration into existing biodiesel production workflows. Use quantitative benchmarks or comparisons to highlight the advances achieved.

Ensure all references are appropriately cited in the main text and that figure captions are consistently formatted.

Reviewer #2: The authors have thoroughly addressed the reviewers' comments and significantly improved their study. The manuscript is now well-suited for publication and represents a valuable contribution to the body of research in this area.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE-R1 .docx

Optimization and CFD-RSM Analysis of Single Orifice Reactor for Enhanced Biodiesel Production

PONE-D-25-06866R2

Dear Dr. Hosseinzadeh Samani,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Mohammad Yusuf, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Reviewer Reports:

I reviewed revised version manuscript titled" Optimization and CFD-RSM Analysis of Single Orifice Reactor for Enhanced Biodiesel Production". The paper has been improved and can be accepted.

**********

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

**********