Review of an article submitted to the conference

Approval status: Accept after acknowledging of remarks
Date Published: 10.06.2021 - 00:59
The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article? 
Yes
Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished? 
Yes
Does the article embrace contemporary issues in the area? 
Yes
Does the article contain new and not published results? 
I do not know
Was the article clearly written and easily understood? 
Easily understood
Conclusions illustrate the research results, recommendations and giving suggestions for future research 
Yes
The references are full and grounded? 
Yes
How adequate was the writing and used terminology? 
Rather adequate
Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article 

Dear Authors,

The text would require small improvements so that the reader can follow your thoughts. For example:

According to the presented results, it was "installed" (do you mean here "concluded"?)

interactions have based on the "the" (please remove second "the") Euler-Euler approach. Furthermore, "the Euler-Euler approach" was not mentioned in the discussion part, therefore it is hard to understand at which point it was applied.

....that the developed model will be "using" (sounds better with "used") to evaluate the hydrodynamic picture, ...."determination of mixing power" (better to remove "determination", since you already used "evaluate" in this sentence)...

It seems like two different fonts were used in the text (see references and headlines), was that your intention?

These are only small remarks that nohow diminish the quality of the work done, which is of high interest for the industrial processes to predict the efficiency of the mixing process.

I confirm that there is no conflict of interests regarding reviewed article. 
I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.