This work is a combination of analytical and numerical analysis of a two-dimensional thermal boundary layer problem, with extension for accounting for magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) effects, porosity, and suction/injection. After applying a similarity transformation, the influence of different factors was examined in the non-dimensional form of the problem. A validation was conducted by comparing obtained values with others from two external sources, and a good agreement was observed. A commercial numerical computation software program was used.

Despite the attractive topic of the work and the great effort reflected in it, it suffers from serious language mistakes. The abstract alone has 6 mistakes. Examples of these mistakes are given (but there are more): • considered to be vary, should be: considered to vary • 2-D steady of non-Newtonian, should be: 2-D steady flow of non-Newtonian • accelerating in the working fluid, should be: accelerating the working fluid • can’t able to spin, should be: can’t spin • mass transmit, should be: mass transmission • transmission of homogeneously dust, should be: transmission of homogeneous dust • leads to amplify, should be: leads to amplifying • tinny pores, should be: tiny pores • Via the help of Forgoing assumptions, should be: Via the help of foregoing assumptions

There are parts which are not clear or technically inappropriate, such as: • As clear the velocity be faster with an increment of m • which yields slow in the velocity • results in higher the temperature profiles • suction flow as compared to suction flow case • capability of a material to deportment heat • manufacturing of nano-materials, mechanical engineering • the thermal state of the working liquid strengthens • The Darcy equation is known as strong to behave this flow. • examining the liquid attitude electrically conducting • micro-inertial per unit mass • miscellaneous values of suggest cooling of surface

There are additional concerns as follows: • In the Introduction, it is not clear what is specific about (beef) when discussing Joule heating. • In the Introduction, the mentioned code (ofbvp4c) is not explained, even briefly. • In the Flow equations Analysis, the text explaining the far-field temperature and concentration is mixed with the explanation of the wall values. • In the Flow equations Analysis, T and C are defined as gradients, but they are not gradients. • In the Flow equations Analysis, one symbol was explained as "the fluid trustworthy thermo-physical fixed value", but this does not clarify what the corresponding quantity means. • In the Flow equations Analysis, the factor (gamma) is explained in a way that does not suggest it is a thermal conductivity as in the later section (Results and discussion). • In the Conclusions, the expression (temperature profiles boosts with an enlarging ... magnetic factors) is not clear. Figure 4 does not show a big effect of the Hartmann number (which includes the magnetic field influence) on the temperature profile.

This manuscript is a revised version of an earlier one related to a combination of analytical and numerical analysis of a two-dimensional thermal boundary layer problem, with extension for accounting for magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) effects, porosity, and suction/injection.

There are many improvements to address previously raised concerns, and a cover letter was kindly provided. The effort made in revising the manuscript is recognized.

There are still many writing mistakes not yet corrected, such as (by maximizes), which should be (by maximizing) and (impacts is), which should be (impacts are). In case the manuscript is finally accepted, the editorial office may need to assist heavily in the final version of the manuscript.