Synergistic Humidification and Chemical Agglomeration to Improve Capturing the Fine Particulate Matter by Electrostatic Precipitator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the manuscript presented the original results of their research. The data is very interesting and technologically feasible but the level of presentation of the results requires serious improvement.
1. What is it P2.5?
2. What is the purpose of the research? The goal should be present before the experimental part and not in the Results and Discussion section.
3. Where were coagulants added? In which block in Figures 1 or 2 were coagulants added? This should be written in the experimental section (page 4) and not in the Results and Discussion section (page 6).
5. Page 4, line 144: Check for presence of particle size units.
6. To subsection "Influence of chemical coagulation agent types": After this title, the reviewer expected to get acquainted with the results of the analysis of the influence of various types of coagulants. However, the authors presented a discussion of only two coagulants. In this regard, the question arises: on what basis were such coagulants chosen? This should be stated either in the purpose of the study or in the experimental part.
7. Why is CTAB additive more effective than other surfactants? The explanation given by the authors applies to all surfactants and is described in general terms. What is the surface or interfacial tension of these surfactants?
8. To test the synergy effect, it is necessary to test the effect of the two factors separately. The authors presented results in which one parameter (CTAB concentration) was constant and only the second parameter (SG concentration) changed. Have any experiments been conducted in which the concentration of CTAB was changed while the content of SG was constant? Comparison of the results obtained under the same conditions will allow us to conclude that there is a synregism effect.
9. The authors use the term “synergetic effect” quite freely. According to the data presented in Fig. 7-9 there is no synergistic effect. At best, an additivity effect is recorded.
10. To subsection 3.5.1: What was the reason for choosing a concentration of 10 mg/L for chemical coagulants?
11. Within the error limits, the removal efficiency for SG, XTG and KGM is the same (Fig. 11). How can this be explained?
12. Subsections 3.4.2 and 3.5.2 have the same title! A 1.5% increase in removal efficiency is not a synergistic effect. This is not even an additivity effect!
13. The same applies to subsection 3.5.3.
14. Did the authors consider the selection of their coagulants and surfactants in terms of availability (price, prevalence)?
The presented comments do not reduce the novelty and originality of the work but answers to them will improve the quality of presentation of the results and clarify some unclear points.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present an innovative and efficient method of dust separation. An agglomeration technology in wet electrostatic precipitators is proposed to reduce dust emissions from coal-fired power plants. The results show that adding of chemical agglomerates, surfactants and water vapor, all affect the diameter of the dust and the separation efficiency. The synergistic action of chemical agglomeration agents and water vapor is highlighted. The experiments are correctly conducted, the influences of the experimental conditions and the methods used are correctly interpreted.
I recommend improving the quality of the figures to be easier to understand.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made corrections to all comments. This increased the level of understanding of the material presented and significantly emphasized the novelty of the work.
