Numerical simulation and experimental verification of venturi tube hydraulic cavitation

Zhanshuo Zhang; Sitong Guo; Xueying Ji; Linlin Cao; Zhanshan Ma; Yunsheng Tian; Xiaolong Zhou; Zhijie Huang; Xiaobo Liu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0336755

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 29, 2025
9 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Bahram Hosseinzadeh Samani, Editor Dear Dr. Cao, 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 Jan 23 2026 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, Bahram Hosseinzadeh Samani 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 note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: [This work was supported by the Science and Technology Development Plan Project of Jilin Province, China (Grant No. YDZJ202401602ZYTS and Grant No. YDZJ202401394ZYTS), Science and Technology Research Project of Jilin Provincial Department of Education (Grant No. JJKH20230060KJ) and Jilin City Science and Technology Innovation Development Plan Project (Grant No. 20240503037).]. Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This work was supported by the Science and Technology Development Plan Project of Jilin Province, China (Grant No. YDZJ202401602ZYTS and Grant No. YDZJ202401394ZYTS), Science and Technology Research Project of Jilin Provincial Department of Education (Grant No. JJKH20230060KJ) and Jilin City Science and Technology Innovation Development Plan Project (Grant No. 20240503037).] We note that you have provided funding information that is 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: [This work was supported by the Science and Technology Development Plan Project of Jilin Province, China (Grant No. YDZJ202401602ZYTS and Grant No. YDZJ202401394ZYTS), Science and Technology Research Project of Jilin Provincial Department of Education (Grant No. JJKH20230060KJ) and Jilin City Science and Technology Innovation Development Plan Project (Grant No. 20240503037).] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. 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. 6. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. 7. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Review of the submitted manuscript entitled “Numerical Simulation and Experimental Verification of Venturi Tube Hydraulic Cavitation”. This study provides multiple CFD scenarios of hydraulic cavitation by changing the boundary conditions. In the beginning of the manuscript, the authors introduced the experiments and materials, which are significantly unconnected to the CFD simulations. Therefore, I can only consider this study as a computational approach to the current situation. Nevertheless, major revisions must be applied to consider both numerical and experimental methods and keeping the title as it is. Please carefully check the following comments: 1- Authors kindly must include a validation of the CFD simulations by comparing it directly (with direct parameters) to the data observed by the experimental tools. 2- Where is the data of the experimental section, this is just descriptions without useful results that you can compare with your simulations. Even the discussion at the end of the manuscript is unconnected. Include both the experiment and numerical results in one chart to observe the variations. You did not even mention about this figure 21 in the text. 3- The title of the second section is “Experimental Methods”, in line 161, which is incorrect, it is the numerical section. 4- The introduction section does not provide enough explanation for the research gap to prove the novelty of your simulations. I guess most of the factors and scenarios considered in your results are already studied thoroughly in the prior publications. The total number of cited references is significantly low with neglecting the most useful paper 5- Manage your manuscript sections to include the experimental and computational discussions in parallel with additional comparisons to reflect the verification that you mentioned in the title. 6- Reduce the total number of figures and tables by combining the charts togethers in one figure with multiple panels. Similarly to the tables. You can exclude the duplicated results for both figures and tables. 7- Discuss more in your results how your findings are similar or different compared to the previous investigations. I will not write exact references, but I believe you can find appropriate comparable results in the literature. Reviewer #2: The authors have proposed a numerical study of the venturi tube, verified experimentally. The topic is interesting. They have performed mesh dependency studies. Experimental setup is clearly shown. The results are validated. I only have a few minor comments for the authors to help increasing the quality of the work. - The figure captions can be more explanatory. - There are too many figures in this manuscript, most of which are not informative enough. Some figures can be merged into a figure with multiple panels to have more informative figures. For example, please merge Figures 2 and 3, Figures 4-6, Figures 7 and 8, Figures 9 and 10, Figures 12 and 13, Figures 15 and 16, Figures 17 and 18, and Figures 19 and 20. - The subscripts in the manuscript are not written correctly. Please revise. ****** 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: Yes: ISLAM M. S. ABOUELHAMD Reviewer #2: 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336755.r001
Revision 1
19 Jan 2026 Author Response Reviewer #1: eview of the submitted manuscript entitled “Numerical Simulation and Experimental Verification of Venturi Tube Hydraulic Cavitation”. This study provides multiple CFD scenarios of hydraulic cavitation by changing the boundary conditions. In the beginning of the manuscript, the authors introduced the experiments and materials, which are significantly unconnected to the CFD simulations. Therefore, I can only consider this study as a computational approach to the current situation. Nevertheless, major revisions must be applied to consider both numerical and experimental methods and keeping the title as it is. Please carefully check the following comments: 1-Authors kindly must include a validation of the CFD simulations by comparing it directly (with direct parameters) to the data observed by the experimental tools. Reply 1: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. Due to the limitations of our experimental setup, we are unable to directly collect the average void fraction parameter from the CFD simulation. However, by reviewing relevant literature�1.Junjie Y,Shuai L, Li L, Ruiqi B, Shuo C, Hanyang G. Wire-mesh sensor technique for void fraction measurement in gas–liquid two-phase flow under varying conductivity conditions. Measurement. 2025; 256: 118281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2025.118281118281.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2025.118281; 2.Gardenghi ÁR, dos Santos Filho E, Chagas DG, Scagnolatto G, Oliveira RM, Tibiriçá CB. Overview of void fraction measurement techniques, databases and correlations for two-phase flow in small diameter channels. Fluids. 2020; 5(4): 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5040216 ��we found a direct correlation between the average void fraction and the final temperature difference and conductivity of the solution. Therefore, we plan to indirectly verify the average void fraction in the CFD simulation through the variations in these two parameters. Furthermore, we will continue our investigation in future experiments by directly measuring the void fraction. 2-Where is the data of the experimental section, this is just descriptions without useful results that you can compare with your simulations. Even the discussion at the end of the manuscript is unconnected. Include both the experiment and numerical results in one chart to observe the variations. You did not even mention about this figure 21 in the text. Reply 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The sequence number of Figure 21 in the original manuscript has been updated to Figure 14, and an explanation has been added accordingly. We have also included a comparative description between the simulation results and the experimental data. The revised description is as follows: As illustrated in Figures 14(c) through 14(f), under conditions of fixed Venturi tube length, both conductivity and temperature difference exhibit a progressive decline as the exit cone angle increases incrementally, whereas these parameters demonstrate a corresponding upward trend with increasing throat diameter. When tube length is varied, the conductivity and temperature difference follow a non-linear trajectory: they initially rise and subsequently fall with increasing exit cone angle, while exhibiting a more complex pattern of initial increase, followed by decrease, and final resurgence with increasing throat diameter. Notably, the experimental variation trends of conductivity and temperature difference closely parallel those of the average gas holdup derived from CFD simulations, with comparable magnitudes of fluctuation. This strong correlation implies that changes in conductivity and temperature difference are intrinsically linked to the average gas holdup, thereby providing insight into the dynamic evolution of internal fluid state within the pipeline. 3-The title of the second section is “Experimental Methods”, in line 161, which is incorrect, it is the numerical section. Reply 3: Thank you very much for pointing out this error. We have corrected it by changing the title of the second section from "Experimental Methods" to "Numerical Section." Additionally, we have made appropriate adjustments to the manuscript structure. We greatly appreciate your attention to this detail. 4-The introduction section does not provide enough explanation for the research gap to prove the novelty of your simulations. I guess most of the factors and scenarios considered in your results are already studied thoroughly in the prior publications. The total number of cited references is significantly low with neglecting the most useful paper Reply 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback! In response to the concern regarding the lack of sufficient explanation in the introduction to highlight the research gap, I have added two relevant references to more clearly illustrate the novelty of the research and its differences from existing literature. We are well aware that similar factors and scenarios have been extensively studied in previous publications, but we aim to offer a new perspective by further exploring these factors in our study.Thank you again for your guidance and suggestions. We will continue to refine the manuscript to ensure its comprehensiveness and accuracy. 5-Manage your manuscript sections to include the experimental and computational discussions in parallel with additional comparisons to reflect the verification that you mentioned in the title. Reply 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions! In response to your comment regarding the parallel discussion of experimental and computational results with additional comparisons to reflect the verification mentioned in the title, we have revised the manuscript. In the updated version, we have closely compared the experimental data with the computational results and introduced additional comparative analyses to clearly showcase our verification process and outcomes. This improvement strengthens the connection between the experimental and computational sections, enhancing the transparency and persuasiveness of the verification. We believe these adjustments will make the paper more comprehensive and clearer, and better highlight the novelty and verification process of our research. Thank you again for your guidance and suggestions. We will continue to refine the manuscript based on your feedback. 6-Reduce the total number of figures and tables by combining the charts togethers in one figure with multiple panels. Similarly to the tables. You can exclude the duplicated results for both figures and tables. Reply 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion! In response to the comment about reducing the number of figures and tables, we have made adjustments to the manuscript. To improve the paper's conciseness and readability, we have combined multiple related figures into one, using multiple panels to present the data. We believe these changes will effectively reduce the total number of figures and tables while maintaining the integrity and clarity of the information. Thank you again for your suggestion. We will continue to refine the manuscript. Please feel free to share any further comments or suggestions. 7-Discuss more in your results how your findings are similar or different compared to the previous investigations. I will not write exact references, but I believe you can find appropriate comparable results in the literature. Reply 7: Thank you for your valuable feedback! In response to your suggestion to discuss more about the similarities and differences between our findings and previous studies in the results section, we have revised the manuscript. In the updated version, we have added more comparative analysis in the results section, thoroughly discussing the similarities and differences between our findings and relevant studies in the existing literature. By reviewing relevant literature, we have identified comparable research results and incorporated them into the discussion to further highlight the uniqueness and contribution of our study. Thank you again for your feedback. We believe these revisions will enhance the depth and persuasiveness of the paper. Please feel free to share any further comments or suggestions. Reviewer #2:The authors have proposed a numerical study of the venturi tube, verified experimentally. The topic is interesting. They have performed mesh dependency studies. Experimental setup is clearly shown. The results are validated. I only have a few minor comments for the authors to help increasing the quality of the work. - The figure captions can be more explanatory. - There are too many figures in this manuscript, most of which are not informative enough. Some figures can be merged into a figure with multiple panels to have more informative figures. For example, please merge Figures 2 and 3, Figures 4-6, Figures 7 and 8, Figures 9 and 10, Figures 12 and 13, Figures 15 and 16, Figures 17 and 18, and Figures 19 and 20. - The subscripts in the manuscript are not written correctly. Please revise. Reply: Thank you for your positive feedback and valuable suggestions regarding our research! We are pleased to hear that you found our numerical study and experimental validation interesting, and we appreciate your recognition of the experimental setup and result verification. In response to your suggestions, we have made the following adjustments: 1.We have modified the figure titles to make them more explanatory and clear, helping readers better understand the meaning and context of each figure. 2.We have reviewed the numerical data in the manuscript and supplemented or corrected the less detailed sections, ensuring that the data is more comprehensive and complete. 3.We have carefully checked and corrected the subscript errors in the manuscript, ensuring the accuracy of symbols and labels. 4.Based on your suggestion, we have combined the following figures and reorganized them into multiple-panel format: Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336755.r002
2 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Bahram Hosseinzadeh Samani, Editor Numerical Simulation and Experimental Verification of Venturi Tube Hydraulic Cavitation PONE-D-25-58519R1 Dear Dr. Cao, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Bahram Hosseinzadeh Samani 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 Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Thank you for revising the manuscript, seems reasonable for publication with potential improvement for next studies Reviewer #2: The authors have answered almost all my comments. I can suggest publishing this work in this journal now. ****** 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: Yes: ISLAM ABOUELHAMD Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336755.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bahram Hosseinzadeh Samani, Editor PONE-D-25-58519R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Cao, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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 Prof Bahram Hosseinzadeh Samani Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336755.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 .