I would work the information in by referring to the author: This paper uses the criteria ..... given by Raghunathon [ibid.].
I would write the last part as simply "... are* stated in [72]." You could also write "... are given in that reference" or any number of other things. However, writing both "this reference" and [72] is redundant.
It is not standard editorial practice to cite the same reference twice in close succession, and a reference to a reference is equally unorthodox. As is putting
Ibid. in the main text.
The ref. no.
72 (which should be a superscript but I don't know how to do that on this site!) takes the reader to Raghunathan's book or article. The usual way of referring to it again so soon would be to have another footnote, numbered
73, whose text consisted only of the word "Ibid." (meaning the same publication as cited in the note immediately above).
However, there's no need for that when the reference to footnote 72 is so close. Also: (1) the footnote number would normally be a superscript placed
after the comma. (2) The word
therefore is inappropriate here (unless there's some earlier text that provides a reason to use it).
My solution would be for the passage to read something like this:
According to Raghunathan,72 the Wells turbine having NACA aerofoil profiles of 20% thickness demonstrated the best performance compared to thinner aerofoils from the same series. In this paper, the criteria for airfoil selection at the tip section for the VTB Wells turbine design are those set out by him. (or — preferably — in that article, or paper, book, or whatever is appropriate).
