[J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sc.] Submission Acknowledgement

(1)

4/3/22, 6:48 AM IST AKPRIND Mail - [J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sc.] Submission Acknowledgement

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0fd6d0b53c&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1695189390740506866&simpl=msg-f%3A1695189… 1/1 Anak Agung <[email protected]>

[J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sc.] Submission Acknowledgement

Nor Azwadi Che Sidik <[email protected]> Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 2:49 PM To: Susastiawan Anak Agung <[email protected]>

Susastiawan Anak Agung:

Thank you for submitting the manuscript, "Development of An Air-Stage Downdraft Gasifier and Performance

Evaluation on Feedstock of Rice Husk " to Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences.

With the online journal management system that we are using, you will be able to track its progress through the editorial process by logging in to the journal web site:

Submission URL: http://www.akademiabaru.com/submit/index.php/arfmts/authorDashboard/submission/3623 Username: agung589e_akprind

If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for considering this journal as a venue for your work.

Nor Azwadi Che Sidik

________________________________________________________________________

Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences

(2)

4/3/22, 6:49 AM IST AKPRIND Mail - [J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sc.] Editor Decision

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0fd6d0b53c&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1696167661658638283&simpl=msg-f%3A1696167… 1/3 Anak Agung <[email protected]>

[J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sc.] Editor Decision

Nor Azwadi Che Sidik <[email protected]> Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 9:58 AM To: Susastiawan Anak Agung <[email protected]>

We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, "Development of An Air-Stage Downdraft Gasifier and Performance Evaluation on Feedstock of Rice Husk ".

Our decision is: Revisions Required

(Please upload the revised manuscript file in OJS SYESTEM under Review Tab at Revision section) Please submit the revised article by 20 April 2021

_______

Please cite few articles from

http://www.akademiabaru.com/submit/index.php/araset http://www.akademiabaru.com/submit/index.php/cfdl http://www.akademiabaru.com/submit/index.php/arms

--- Reviewer A:

Recommendation: Revisions Required ---

1. The topic is important and relevant for publication Yes

2. The work presented in the manuscript is original Yes

3. The manuscript uses sufficient references No

4. The manuscript uses appropriate language and styles No

(3)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0fd6d0b53c&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1696167661658638283&simpl=msg-f%3A1696167… 2/3 5. The title of the manuscript is appropriate

Yes

6. The order of presentation is satisfactory Yes

7. The abstract adequately summarizes the content of the manuscript No

8. The introduction is adequately developed No

9. The problem described in the manuscript is clearly stated Yes

10. The adopted methodology described in the manuscript is sound Yes

11. The findings of this manuscript are correctly interpreted Yes

12. The quality of figures and illustrations is acceptable for publications Yes

13. The manuscript does not dwell on any sensitive issues Yes

Comments to Author

The authors have aimed to build a double air-stage downdraft gasifier for a small-scale biomass power plant system. The gasifier is tested on waste of rice husk at equivalence ratio 0.20, 0.30, and 0.40. The gasification parameters evaluated are axial temperature of the gasifier, fuel consumption rate, heating rate, and thermal efficiency. The prepared manuscript can be considered for publication after major revision. Please find the comments as below:

Abstract:

- Research background, problem statement, objectives of the study and research gap are not stated in the abstract properly. In addition, there is lack of clear-cut statement in the findings sections coverage of this research study. Please try to highlight the best findings/significance of this research study which makes obvious distinction compared to previous literature. Future direction/recommendation as 1-line sentence at the end of abstract might be useful and give appropriate understanding to the potential reader.

Introduction:

1- There is lack of critical discussion in the section of introduction in the literature review. Critical discussion will lead the potential readers to have better overview of the research importance and the existence gap will be more elucidated for them. Please try to discuss extensively regarding the recent published papers. I would like to strongly suggest the authors to go through some recent published

(4)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0fd6d0b53c&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1696167661658638283&simpl=msg-f%3A1696167… 3/3 papers as below:

1- Zendehboudi, A., Aslfattahi, N., Rahman, S., Sabri, M. F. M., Said, S. M., Arifutzzaman, A., & Sidik, N. A. C. (2020). Optimization of Thermal Conductivity of NanoPCM-Based Graphene by Response Surface Methodology. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, 75(3), 108-125.

2. Aslfattahi, N., Saidur, R., Sidik, N. A. C., Sabri, M. F. M., & Zahir, M. H. (2020). Experimental assessment of a novel eutectic binary molten salt-based hexagonal boron nitride nanocomposite as a promising PCM with enhanced specific heat capacity. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid

Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, 68(1), 73-85.

2- Novelty part should be improved appropriately. Novelty part must cover significance of the work and at the same time represent the best findings of the research study. Future recommendations as a sentence also can be useful. This section is vital part and needs serious attention. Please expand this part carefully.

General Comment:

- Language and clarity should be improved extensively. Comprehensive proof editing is necessary for the manuscript. There are a lot of typo/grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.

---

--- Reviewer B:

1) Problem statement is not clear. May state in the last paragraph of Introduction.

2) In chapter 2.2, figures have been included. However, it does not really help to vizualize the inner part of the gasifier. I would suggest the author to add a figure showing interior part of the gasifier or perhaps add labels on the figure.

3) In chapter 2.3, what is WBT?

4) In chapter 2.5, cylinder and exhaust temperature have been analyzed but have not been mentioned in Introduction and Conclusion. Since this characterize the system performance, it needs to be highlighted in Intro and Conclusion.

5) Some verbs have been incorrectly used. Examples, In chapter 2.3, Axial temperatures of the gasifier are observed using K-Type Thermocouples... Replace "observed" with "recorded". In chapter 2.4, mass of water vapour is very less... replace "less" with "small".

6) Some grammatical errors were found in the manuscript.

Recommendation: Revisions Required ---

________________________________________________________________________

Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences

(5)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=0fd6d0b53c&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-5682259324997984565&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-568… 1/1 Anak Agung <[email protected]>

[J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sc.] Editor Decision

Anak Agung <[email protected]> Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:17 PM

To: Nor Azwadi Che Sidik <[email protected]>

Dear Editor,

I have submitted the Revised Manuscripts entitled “Development of An Air-Stage Downdraft Gasifier and Performance Evaluation on Feedstock of Rice Husk” and Detail Response to Reviewers's comments via OJS System of the Journal. To ensure my submission of the Revision, I also send the Revised Manuscript and the Detail Response to you as in attachment.

Thank you very much for your consideration and help.

Sincerely yours

Dr. A.A.P. Susastriawan

[Quoted text hidden]

2 attachments

Response to Reviewer's comment aaaaaaaaaa.docx 1243K

(Revised Manuscript) Dvelopment of air-stage gasifier.docx 3634K

(6)

Revision

Detail Response to Reviewers’s Comments

I have revised the manuscript entitled “Development of An Air-Stage Downdraft Gasifier and Performance Evaluation on Feedstock of Rice Husk” as the Reviewers’s comments and suggestions. The revisions are colored in Blue in the Revised Manuscript. Meanwhile, detail response to the reviewers’s comments and suggestions are as follows:

Reviewer A Comment:

The authors have aimed to build a double air-stage downdraft gasifier for a small-scale biomass power plant system. The gasifier is tested on waste of rice husk at equivalence ratio 0.20, 0.30, and 0.40. The gasification parameters evaluated are axial temperature of the gasifier, fuel consumption rate, heating rate, and thermal efficiency. The prepared manuscript can be considered for publication after major revision. Please find the comments as below:

Response:

Thank you very much for the recommendation and suggestion.

Comment:

Abstract:

Research background, problem statement, objectives of the study and research gap are not stated in the abstract properly. In addition, there is lack of clear-cut statement in the findings sections coverage of this research study. Please try to highlight the best findings/significance of this research study which makes obvious distinction compared to previous literature. Future direction/recommendation as 1-line sentence at the end of abstract might be useful and give appropriate understanding to the potential reader.

Response:

I have rewritten the abstract as reviewer’s suggestion. The rewritten abstract becomes:

Due to depletion of conventional fuel and increasing global warming, biomass wastes have been explored and investigated by many researchers worldwide. A biomass gasification power plant is a promising conversion technology for energy sustainability. From many existing gasifiers have been developed, mostly they have high technology, huge capacity, and very costly, thus unsuitable for remote area di Indonesia. The present work aims to build a simple and low cost double air-stage downdraft gasifier for a small-scale biomass power plant system. The gasifier is tested on rice husk at equivalence ratio of 0.20, 0.30, and 0.40. The parameters evaluated are axial temperature, fuel consumption rate, heating rate, thermal efficiency, and tar content. The results show that the highest gasification temperature, fuel consumption rate, heating rate, and thermal efficiency are occurs at equivalence ratio 0.4. The values are 904.5°C, 4.14 kg/h, 25.38 kJ/h, and 63.18%, respectively. The significant findings is that the gasifier generates producer gas with low tar content, i.e. 23.9 mg/m³ at equivalence ratio 0.4 and the producer gas is successfully used to run the 3 kW generator set. For sustainability operation of the power plant, it is important to test the gasifier on various biomass waste feedstocks.

(7)

Comment:

Introduction:

1. There is lack of critical discussion in the section of introduction in the literature review. Critical discussion will lead the potential readers to have better overview of the research importance and the existence gap will be more elucidated for them. Please try to discuss extensively regarding the recent published papers. I would like to strongly suggest the authors to go through some recent published papers as below:

a. Zendehboudi, A., Aslfattahi, N., Rahman, S., Sabri, M. F. M., Said, S. M., Arifutzzaman, A., & Sidik, N. A. C. (2020). Optimization of Thermal Conductivity of NanoPCM-Based Graphene by Response Surface Methodology. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, 75(3), 108-125.

b. Aslfattahi, N., Saidur, R., Sidik, N. A. C., Sabri, M. F. M., & Zahir, M. H. (2020).

Experimental assessment of a novel eutectic binary molten salt-based hexagonal boron nitride nanocomposite as a promising PCM with enhanced specific heat capacity. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, 68(1), 73-85.

Response:

I have added more literatures review in Introduction section. The additional are:

…….. The renewable energy sources are promising replacement for petroleum based energy [1].

…….. Performance of the scrubber is affected by several factors such as thermal conductivity of the scrubbing fluid used since the scrubber has a function as cooling and scrubbing device. In order to increase thermal conductivity of the scrubber fluid, hybrid PCM (phase change materials) with graphene filler could be used to achieve increased thermal conductivity [39]

[1] Aslfattahi, N., Saidur, R., Sidik, N. A. C., Sabri, M. F. M., & Zahir, M. H. Experimental assessment of a novel eutectic binary molten salt-based hexagonal boron nitride nanocomposite as a promising PCM with enhanced specific heat capacity. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences 68(1) (2020) 73-85.

[39] Zendehboudi, A., Aslfattahi, N., Rahman, S., Sabri, M. F. M., Said, S. M., Arifutzzaman, A., & Sidik, N. A. C. (2020). Optimization of Thermal Conductivity of NanoPCM-Based Graphene by Response Surface Methodology. Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, 75(3) (2020) 108-125

Comment:

2. Novelty part should be improved appropriately. Novelty part must cover significance of the work and at the same time represent the best findings of the research study. Future recommendations as a sentence also can be useful. This section is vital part and needs serious attention. Please expand this part carefully.

Response:

The novelty statement is been improved appropriated which cover significance and best finding of the work, and also statement of the future recommendation. The novelty statement is:

(8)

A simple and low cost air-stage downdraft gasifier for small scale biomass power plant is designed and fabricated. No similar downdraft gasifier has been reported so far. The performance of the gasifier is evaluated on feedstock of rice husk waste at various equivalence ratios.

Compared with another gasifiers, this gasifier generates producer gas with lower tar content without tar cleaning unit. The gravimetric tar of 23.9 mg/m³ is obtained at equivalence ratio 0.4.

The producer gas is successfully used to run the 3 kW generator set. For sustainability operation of the power plant, it is recommended to test the gasifier on various biomass waste feedstocks.

General Comment:

- Language and clarity should be improved extensively. Comprehensive proof editing is necessary for the manuscript. There are a lot of typo/grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.

Response:

I have checked and tried to revise the typos and grammatical error throughout the manuscript

--- Reviewer B:

Comment:

1. Problem statement is not clear. May state in the last paragraph of Introduction.

Response:

I have added several sentences in last paragraph of introduction section to make problem statement more clear. The revision as follows

From many existing gasifiers have been developed, mostly they have high technology, huge capacity, and very costly, thus unsuitable for remote area di Indonesia The present work aims to design and fabricate a simple and low cost air-stage downdraft gasifier and evaluate its performance. The performance of the gasifier is evaluated by running the gasifier on a feedstock of rice husk at different equivalence ratios and a trial to use the producer gas as a fuel of generator set. Only a few air-stage downdraft gasifiers have been reported so far. The present work is very essential work in order to develop a small-scale biomass power plant for remote areas in Indonesia.

Comment:

2. In chapter 2.2, figures have been included. However, it does not really help to vizualize the inner part of the gasifier. I would suggest the author to add a figure showing interior part of the gasifier or perhaps add labels on the figure.

Response:

I have added the label of the gasifier part in Fig.1 chapter 2.2 as can be seen in revised manuscript

(9)

Fig.1. Photograph of the fabrication process and parts of the gasifier

Comment:

3. In chapter 2.3, what is WBT?

Response:

I described about WBT more detail in Chapter 2.3. The additional description is:

…….. and WBT (Water Boiling Test) unit. The WBT unit is basically pan containing some amount of water and K-type thermocouple. The WBT aims to figure out heat rate of producer gas flame to the water and thermal efficiency of the gasifier…………

Comment:

4. In chapter 2.5, cylinder and exhaust temperature have been analyzed but have not been mentioned in Introduction and Conclusion. Since this characterize the system performance, it needs to be highlighted in Intro and Conclusion.

Response:

The discussion regarding cylinder and exhaust gas temperature have been added in Introduction section as follows

………… The deposit of the burnt tar in the cylinder head may increase the tendency of engine experiences over heat which can cause severe damage of the engine. The simple method to figure out the engine from over heat is that by recording cylinder and exhaust gas temperature when the engine is operated on the producer gas...

And it has been also added in the Conclusion as follows

(10)

...The producer gas is successfully used to run the 3 kW generator set. The generator set operates well without over heating during the test. It can be stated that the gasifier is suitable to be coupled with the generator set to build a small-scale biomass power plant.

Comment:

5. Some verbs have been incorrectly used. Examples, In chapter 2.3, Axial temperatures of the gasifier are observed using K-Type Thermocouples... Replace "observed" with "recorded". In chapter 2.4, mass of water vapour is very less... replace "less" with "small".

Response:

The revision in Chapter 2.3 is

….. Axial temperatures of the gasifier are recorded using K-Type Thermocouples and the data is saved in Data Logger “Graphtec GL240”……

…….The revision in Chapter 2.4 is

Since during the test, mass of water vapour is very small, thus only sensible heat rate is accounted in the Eq.(2).

Comment:

6. Some grammatical errors were found in the manuscript.

Response:

I have checked and tried to revise the typos and grammatical error throughout the manuscript Recommendation: Revisions Required

Thank you very much for your recommendation and suggestion

(11)

4/2/22, 12:43 PM Anak Agung Putu Susastriawan, Development of An Air-Stage Downdraft Gasifier and Performance Evaluation on Feedstock…

https://www.akademiabaru.com/submit/index.php/arfmts/authorDashboard/submission/3623 1/2

3623 / Susastriawan et al. / Development of An Ai… Library

Work ow Publication

Submission Review Copyediting Production

Round 1

Noti cations

Round 1 Status Submission accepted.

[J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. The… 2021-04-05 02:58 AM [J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. The… 2021-04-08 11:49 AM [J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. The… 2021-06-23 05:00 PM

Reviewer's Attachments  Search No Files

Revisions  Search Upload File

Revised manuscript, (Revised

17122-1

 April

7, 2021

Revised manuscript Submissions

Submissions

Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and

Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and …… Tasks Tasks 1

 EnglishEnglish  View SiteView Site  agung589e_akprindagung589e_akprind

Noti cations

[J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sc.] Editor Decision

2021-04-08 11:49 AM

ACCEPTANCE FOR PUBLICATION IN THE JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN FLUID MECHANICS AND THERMAL SCIENCES (2289-7879) – SCOPUS INDEXED

The reviewers have completed the review for your submission to Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, "Development of An Air-Stage Downdraft Gasi er and Performance Evaluation on Feedstock of Rice Husk ".

Our decision is to: Accept for publication

Please make payment of Article Processing Charge of USD350 (International Corresponding Author) or RM1000 (Malaysian Corresponding Author).

The payment can be accomplished through Bank in, Bank transfer or Telegraphic transfer to the following details:

Bene ciary: AKADEMIA BARU PUBLISHING (M) SDN. BHD Bank's Name: Maybank

Account number: 562263543306 Swift code: MBBEMYKL

Full Address: No. 7 & 9, Jalan 9/9c, Seksyen 9 Bandar Baru Bangi, 43650 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Please email the proof of payment to [email protected] before we can begin copyediting of the accepted article.

Thank you Truly

Editor-in-chief, Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences

_

[J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sc.] Submission Acknowledgement