Optimization Study of CO2 Gas Absorption with NaOH Absorbent Continuous System in Raschig Ring Packing Column Using Box–Behnken Design
, Husni Husin 1,2, Muhammad Zaki 1, Lia Mairiza 1,2, Mirna Zulrika 1, Fahrizal Nasution 1,2 and Ahmadi 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a study dealing with the possibility of reducing CO2 production using absorption with NaOH solution. The loss of CO2 was titrated in detail using the model device, however, the design details of this device are not given. This information together with the theoretical consumption of adsorbent could indicate the practical applicability of this system. The study also deals only with the mixture of air and CO2, however, the presence of other additives could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the system in practical use.
For a clear orientation of the reader, I suggest moving the discussion over the individual figures and tables to the discussed figures and tables (lines 370-477).
It might be beneficial to discuss the practical use of the proposed model in the Conclusion chapter.
English quality is fine, only a few typos in the text and text formatting errors.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Greetings, we thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which enable us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The replies to the referees’ comments are present in the table below:
1. The authors present a study dealing with the possibility of reducing CO2 production using absorption with NaOH solution. The loss of CO2 was titrated in detail using the model device. However, the design details of this device are not given. This information together with the theoretical consumption of adsorbent could indicate the practical applicability of this system. The study also deals only with the mixture of air and CO2, however, the presence of other additives could significantly reduce the effectiveness of the system in practical use.
For a clear orientation of the reader, I suggest moving the discussion over the individual figures and tables to the discussed figures and tables (lines 370-477). It might be beneficial to discuss the practical use of the proposed model in the Conclusion chapter.
Answer:
Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the discussion over the individual Figures and tables have been removed to lines 370-477, accordingly in the revised manuscript.
2. English quality is fine, only a few typos in the text and text formatting errors.
Answer:
Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the manuscript have been proofread in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Revision Comments:
1. In Table 1 the allocation is not perfect authors have to take care of it. same as in Table 2
2. It is better to design a schematic diagram than to show an original visual representation.
3. authors have to give a brief statement on why the overall mass transfer coefficient is important to calculate in CO2 conversion
4. In Tables 7 and 8 when the residual F and p values are not being shown means they have to "-" apply.
5. In Fig 2 authors have given only the linear regression value it is requested to show the Y-intercept values as well with N=3 times in each experiment.
6. Authors have to elaborate more in the conclusion parts by explaining the limitations and future aspects as well.
7. introduction part is so naive corrections must be made and a comparison column must be added stating the limitations and how the current work overrides those problems. also need to add these references.
Sharma, T. S. K., Jana, J., Bhamu, K. C., Song, J., Sivaselvam, S., Van Tam, T., ... & Choi, W. M. (2023). Rational synthesis of alkaline earth metal vanadates: Structural origin of MgVO3 honeycomb lattice system and its electrochemical analysis for the detection of sulfadiazine. Chemical Engineering Journal, 464, 142673.
Madejski, P., Chmiel, K., Subramanian, N., & Kuś, T. (2022). Methods and techniques for CO2 capture: Review of potential solutions and applications in modern energy technologies. Energies, 15(3), 887.
Aghel, B., Janati, S., Alobaid, F., Almoslh, A., & Epple, B. (2022). Application of nanofluids in CO2 absorption: a review. Applied Sciences, 12(6), 3200.
Over all manuscript lacks with English interface it is recommended to correct or modify it with the help of a native english speaker, as the usage of idioms and phrases was not correct and most of the sentences were incomplete; and some sentences are given as statement in the present tense itself which needs to be carefully addressed by the authors.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
Greetings, we thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which enable us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The replies to the referees’ comments are present in the table below:
1. In Table 1 the allocation is not perfect authors have to take care of it. same as in Table2.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, Table 1 and Table 2 have now been corrected accordingly. Please refer to page 2-3, on the revised manuscript
2. It is better to design a schematic diagram than to show an original visual representation.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion. The schematic diagram have now been prepared accordingly. Please refer to Figure 1, on the revised manuscript
3. Authors have to give a brief statement on why the overall mass transfer coefficient is important to calculate in CO2 conversion
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention.
The overall mass transfer coefficient is an important parameter to calculate in CO2 conversion because it determines the rate at which reactants and products are transported between the gas and liquid phases. In the case of CO2 conversion, this coefficient affects the rate of CO2 absorption into a liquid solvent and the rate of mass transport of CO2 from the gas phase to the liquid phase.
4. In Tables 7 and 8 when the residual F and p values are not being shown means they have to "-" apply.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the means value (-) has now been shown in Table 7 and 8, accordingly in the revised manuscript.
5. In Fig 2 authors have given only the linear regression value it is requested to show the Y-intercept values as well with N=3 times in each experiment.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, Y-intercept values as well with N=3 times in each experiment is shown in lines 290 and 295.
6. Authors have to elaborate more in the conclusion parts by explaining the limitations and future aspects as well.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention.
The conclusion parts have been elaborated accordingly.
7. Introduction part is so naive corrections must be made and a comparison column must be added stating the limitations and how the current work overrides those problems, also need to add these references.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the introductory section, Table, Picture have now been removed to lines 370-477, accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Also need to add these references.
Answer:
Thanks for bringing these to our attention. The reference has now been added accordingly. Please refer References on the revised manuscript
- Sharma, T. S. K., Jana, J., Bhamu, K. C., Song, J., Sivaselvam, S., Van Tam, T., ... & Choi, W. M. (2023). Rational synthesis of alkaline earth metal vanadates: Structural origin of MgVO3 honeycomb lattice system and its electrochemical analysis for the detection of sulfadiazine. Chemical Engineering Journal, 464, 142673.
- Madejski, P., Chmiel, K., Subramanian, N., & Kuś, T. (2022). Methods and techniques for CO2 capture: Review of potential solutions and applications in modern energy technologies. Energies, 15(3), 887.
- Aghel, B., Janati, S., Alobaid, F., Almoslh, A., & Epple, B. (2022). Application of nanofluids in CO2 absorption: a review. Applied Sciences, 12(6), 3200.
9. Comments on the Quality of English Language
Overall manuscript lacks with English interface it is recommended to correct or modify.
Answer:
Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the manuscript have been proofread in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The structure of the manuscript must be reconsidered and text shortened. In its present form, it looks like a scientific report, overloaded with little useful data, such as tables in the introductory section. Usually this section doesn’t include tables and figures, thus it is recommended to provide generalized information from the literature directly in the text.
2. It is recommended to include schematic diagram of the unit in experimental section instead of a photograph and provide a complete methodology for conducting experimental work, as well as information about experimental conditions and control instruments – temperatures, pressures, concentrations etc.
3. It is very difficult to read the sections 2.2.1-2.2.4, due to enormous volume of the text. Its recommended to reduce these sections. Not all units are indicated in the text, some names are duplicated, e.g. H and A (lines 137-157).
4. The overall quality of the figures is rather poor. Figures 3-11 are given before the text with explanations. It seems that they should be inserted in the text in the order of their respective discussion.
Figure 2 - squares with different colors - what are they indicating;
Figure 3b - X3 axis is provided, however only X2 is discussed in the caption;
Figures 9-10 are simply trimmed.
etc.
5. The conclusion section is very small and simplistic.
Moderate editing of English language is recommended.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
Greetings, we thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which enable us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The replies to the referees’ comments are present in the table below:
1. The structure of the manuscript must be reconsidered and text shortened. In its present form, it looks like a scientific report, overloaded with little useful data, such as tables in the introductory section. Usually this section doesn’t include tables and figures, thus it is recommended to provide generalized information from the literature directly in the text.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the introductory section, Table, Picture have now been removed to lines 370-477, accordingly in the revised manuscript.
2. It is recommended to include schematic diagram of the unit in experimental section instead of a photograph and provide a complete methodology for conducting experimental work, as well as information about experimental conditions and control instruments – temperatures, pressures, concentrations etc.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, schematic diagram of the unit in the experimental section has been added accordingly in the revised manuscript.
3. It is very difficult to read the sections 2.2.1-2.2.4, due to enormous volume of the text. Its recommended to reduce these sections. Not all units are indicated in the text, some names are duplicated, e.g. H and A (lines 137-157).
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the sections 2.2.1-2.2.4 have now been correction accordingly in the revised manuscript.
4. The overall quality of the figures is rather poor. Figures 3-11 are given before the text with explanations. It seems that they should be inserted in the text in the order of their respective discussion.
Figure 2 - squares with different colors - what are they indicating;
Figure 3b - X3 axis is provided, however only X2 is discussed in the caption;
Figures 9-10 are simply trimmed.
etc.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, all of the Figure, caption, etc have now been correction accordingly in the revised manuscript.
5. The conclusion section is very small and simplistic.
Answer: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the conclusion have been corrected accordingly in the revised manuscript
6. Moderate editing of English language is recommended.
Answer: Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the manuscript have been proofread in the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept as is.
