This paper is an interesting piece with a clearly stated objective. Our knowledge of the subject is well scrutinized. The referencing of the work is short and conscise. However, the readability of the paper could be well improved. Furthermore, the author can do a better work by letting us know the exception of the paper to that of other researchers. He can as well let us know why it is important to bridge the gap. Moreover, it is worth commending the authors for a job well done on the detailed explanation and breakdown of the modelling and method used. Furthermore, the mathematical formulation used and the breakdown from partial differential equation to ODE was clear and concise. However, the work could be more impactful if the graphs can be labeled (e.g fig. 9 shows the effect of Prandtl number on temperature distribution.) etc. Also, in the discussion aspect of the work, the rate at which the parameters selected affect temperature, concentration and velocity in addition of other factors of the fluid can be stated in order to enhance the general knowledge of the work. In addition, the graphs presented can be simplified to aid easy understanding of the authors' work by adding illustrations (e.g. fig 9 shows the effect of Prandtl number on temperature.) adding this illustration makes the graph more explanatory. Also, the results in the tables presented could be made more accurate by rounding the numbers into a specific significant figure. Furthermore, the table could be improved by adding more of the parameters considered in the graphs to it e.g the rate at which Prandtl number and Biot number affect temperature distribution were not stated in the table. In addition, it will be more factual if the author can validate the results he obtained with previous results as it will help show the uniqueness of the work from the previous ones. Moreover, the rate at which the parameters affect the factors being considered in the paper were not stated. Taking for example, the rate at which the Heat transfer rate (Nusselt number) reduces for larger (Nt), (Nb), (Ec) and ((θf)) while enhances when (R) increases were not stated. These observations stated make the results less clear. In Conclusion, before the presentation of results, the author can do well by briefly stating the aim of the study. It is well worth noting that the discussions can be well structured in such a way that the key observations could be pinpointed rather than summarizing the whole observation. furthermore, the relation of the results gotten with the aim of the study needs to be stated for better clarification of the work. In addition. As a matter of fact, the author can as well let us know how the results presented answers the main purpose of the research. The paper could be more impacting if the authors can recommend from his observations for the future researchers. Correcting these observations will go a long way towards making the paper more impacting and beneficial.