Reviewer 1:

1- The first figure is labeled as figure 2 mistakenly.

The first figure has been corrected as figure 1 in page 14.

2- Figure 2 that only represents the geometry should not take a whole page. Please make it small and efficient in a
half-page format.
Two pictures in figure 2 have been combined and only takes half a page as in page 14.

3- Figure 3 that only represents the meshing should not take a whole page. Please make it small and efficient in a
half-page format.
Two pictures in figure 2 have been combined and only takes half a page as in page 15.

4- Figure 5 took three pages. Make it in one page by eliminating empty spaces in a two-column format. Don't show
the legend for each figure. Only one legend for the whole figure is sufficient.
Six sub figures that represent color contour result have been combined in one figure. This combination has utilized
the space by using two column format as in page 19.

5- Novelty of the problem and the method used to address the problem must be clearly mentioned in the last
paragraph of the introduction in the itemized form.
The novelty of the problem and method used to address the problem have been mentioned in the last paragraph of
the introduction in itemized format as in page 4.

6- In the introduction, review/cite those papers that used numerical approaches (CFD) in fluid mechanics areas
(micro/nanofluids, etc). You may consider the papers that have used Lattice Boltzmann Methods (LBMs), one of the
most powerful CFD methods. Also, do so for the papers that have used finite volume methods (FVM).
Related paper such as numerical approaches (CFD) in fluid mechanics areas and lattice Boltzmann method (LBMs)
has been cited in this paper as in page 3.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript reports the impact of divergent length on the gas particle flow in dual hose
dry ice blasting. The study was performed numerically. The manuscript was written in a good way in which
gives the reader clear insights into the subject. It can be accepted for publication in "Powder Technology"
after revision. Here are my comments:

1-     In the middle of introduction, authors have stated that "Hence, in this study, the nozzle geometry was
investigated to determine the relationship between the maximum particle velocity, acoustic power levels and
different particle inlet angles.", and then there are several paragraphs allocated to the literature review.
Generally, the last part of introduction should reflect the novelty of work, and the methods have been
implemented to conduct the study. A re-configuration in the structure of introduction is suggested.
The statement on the “Hence, in this study, the nozzle geometry was investigated to determine the
relationship between the maximum particle velocity, acoustic power levels and different particle inlet angles”
has been change to “Hence, in this study, the nozzle geometry was investigated to determine the relationship on
the flow characteristic and turbulent intensity on different divergent length range from 190 mm to 290 mm with
increment of 20 mm.” as in page 3. In addition, method used to address the issue has been add up in the last
introduction section in itemized format. The introduction structure has been improved by adding the novelty of
problem and method used in conducting the study as shown in itemized format just below the introduction as in page
4.

2-     What is the reference for "previous study" in model validation section? A summary of that previous
study needs to be added to the manuscript. Are the simulation conditions similar to the experimental
settings?  
The reference for previous study in the model validation section has been cited and explain in detail on the
model dimension and condition of setup the experiment has been explain in that section as in page 5 and 6.

3-     In Table 2, the reference for the experimental results should be stated.
The reference for the experimental result and simulation result has been cited in table 2 as in page 12.

4-     Figure 1 has been captioned by "Figure 2".

The first figure has been corrected as figure 1 in page 21.

5-     In Figure 4, there are two sub-figures with caption f.

The figure 4 for caption f has been rectified and corrected as in page 14.

6-     Authors need to explain why there is a substantial increase in eddy viscosity after 0.25 m for smaller
divergent lengths.
We have explain clearly why there is a substantial increase in eddy viscosity after 0.25 m in page number 1
and 7.

Reviewer #3: The paper title "Influence of Divergent Length on the Gas-Particle Flow in Dual Hose Dry Ice
Blasting Nozzle Geometry" is a numerical simulation examine the effect of nozzle geometry and divergent
length on gas-particle flows in dual hose dry ice blasting. The paper is well written but there are some
issues.
- There are some "Error! Reference source not found"
The figure error in page 5 has been corrected.

- Your mesh generation explanation is not complete, please see and use following paper: https://www.drink-
water-eng-sci.net/12/39/2019/
The mesh explanation has been add up by mentioning the mesh detail in term of mesh generation on the
model that produce six (6) thousand rectangular meshed as in page 5.

- Literature review is not complete, please work on that.

The literature review has been completed by stating clearly the novelty of the problem, method of
addressing the issue, research gap and mentioning the novelty in the study as in page 3.

- The English need some improvement.

The English language has been improve by hiring proofread on this paper

- the quality of Fig.2 and 5 is not good.

The figure 2 and 5 quality have been improved as in page 14 and 19 respectively.