Naphtha Characterization (PIONA, Density, Distillation Curve and Sulfur Content): An Origin Comparison

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors

 

I found the article very informative and insightful of the current situation but it is necessary to provide a more detailed description of the novelty/originality and impact of the present investigation. The following are important comments that I believe that would make your manuscript more accessible to the readers and would improve the scientifically/technically sound descriptions of your work. Please, see also the marked up PDF file attached. I look forward to receive the updated manuscript.

 

1.       Line 22 (Abstract): In my opinion, what is missing in the abstract is the novel/originality of your study and what impact does it have. For example, shall the Brazilian government reduce the imports of naphtha and opt out for investing in Brazilian facilities instead, to ensure the well-being of the economy in the short term and long term?

 

2.       Line 25: I suggest to write "national" rather than "Brazilian" because until this point you have not mentioned that the study was conducted in Brazil

 

3.       Line 61: Based on the description given in the previous paragraph, I understand that this data was taken from references [8,9]. I would suggest to remove this table and just describe the main conclusion that can be withdraw in the text. However, if you still want to include the table, please cite the references [8,9] in the caption.

 

4.       Table 1: This is a very informative information but please, be scarce with including exemplified results and rather describe it in the text and cite them appropriately.

 

5.       Line 73 (Figure 1): This is a very informative schematic that could be remove and just explained in the text.

 

6.       Line 74 (Own authorship, 2021): Could be deleted

 

7.       Line 83 (Table 2): This is a very informative Table that could be remove and just explained in the previous bullet point, to justify the conversion processes.

 

8.       Line 86 (Figure 2): Again, this is a very informative schematic. Please, try to be scarce with figures and tables that are not the main results of your investigation.

 

9.       Line 87 (Own authorship, 2021): Could be deleted

 

10.   Line 112: As in the previous informative tables, cite reference [17, 20-22] at the end of the caption for the reader easily identify that this is not an outcome of your investigation.

 

11.   Line 124: As in the previous informative tables, cite the original reference [12] at the end of the caption for the reader easily identify that this is not an outcome of your investigation.

 

12.   Table 4: I would suggest to follow the classical structure for an article: Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion and future work.

 

13.   Lines 131 – 136: As it is, your current introduction section is divided in 3 subsection that provides exhaustive scientific/technical background of the investigation (section 1 and 2) but a vague description of novelty/originality of your research activity (last paragraph of section 3). Perhaps you could elaborate more on the challenges that the petrochemical industry is facing and how this opportunities to improve could ameliorate the situation.

 

14.   Line 137: This section should be called "Materials and methods"

 

15.   Line 138: This subsection should be called "Materials".

 

16.   Line 139: Particularly, in the case of the imported samples, the readership would appreciate more details on the geographical origin of the samples.

 

17.   Line 150: This subsection should be called "Methods".

 

18.   Line 159: This table cannot be presented at the beginning of results section, although it might be suitable for the discussion of the results obtained later on. Please, move the table to a more suitable position in the discussion of the results. As in the previous informative tables, cite reference [6,26] at the end of the caption for the reader easily identify that this is not an outcome of your investigation.

 

19.   Figure 3: Please, include a Y axis with the label "PIONA Distribution/(wt.%)" and remove the caption attached to the figure. You could also remove the numbers in the bars and the horizontal tick marks (at least the minor type ones).

 

20.   Figure 4: Please, include a Y axis with the label "Paraffinity/(wt.%)" and remove the caption attached to the figure. You could also remove the numbers in the bars and the horizontal tick marks (at least the minor type ones).

 

21.   Figure 5: Please, include a Y axis with the label "Density (20/4°)" and remove the caption attached to the figure. You could also remove the numbers in the bars and the horizontal tick marks (at least the minor type ones).

 

22.   Line 205: I guess you are referring to Table 7.

 

23.   Line 206: As per my comment for Table 6, Table 7 cannot be presented before Figure 6, where you present the results of your investigation but rather Table 7 is suitable for the discussion of the results (Figure 6) later on. I recommend to describe the key points of table 7 in the text rather than include it in the manuscript as such. If you still want to include table 7, I suggest to move it to the supplementary material. As in the previous informative tables, cite reference [12,27,30] at the end of the caption for the reader easily identify that this is not an outcome of your investigation.

 

24.   Figure 6: Please, include a Y axis with the label "Total Sulfur/(mg/kg)" and remove the caption attached to the figure. You could also remove the numbers in the bars and the horizontal tick marks (at least the minor type ones).

 

25.   Figure 7: Please, include a Y axis with the label "Distillation temperature/(°C)" and remove the caption attached to the figure. You could also remove the numbers in the bars and the horizontal tick marks (at least the minor type ones).

 

26.   Lines 229 – 238: I found the conclusions section suitable for this report but I believe that the impact of the present study is missing. What are the future actions and research work that needs to be undertaken to ameliorate the situation of the Brazilian/global petrochemical industry?

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the following changes were made in the document attach.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work Naphtha Characterization (PIONA, Density, Distillation Curve and Sulfur Content): An Origin Comparison presents a characterization of naphtha in 4 parameters; it is suggested that the authors carry out a deeper discussion of the results obtained with others present in the literature; likewise it would have been important to establish an experimental design that would allow establishing significant differences between the different samples analyzed. Other comments are described below.

 

1. A general description is made to introduce the subject to the reader; it is recommended that the authors show more clearly the contribution of this work, indicating which aspects have not yet been evaluated in the process of obtaining naphtha.

2.           Line 134 indicates the importance of mathematical modeling, but the work does not show results of this aspect; I suggest that it be removed from the introduction since this work is not related to mathematical modeling.

3.           The methodology is very general; it would be interesting for the authors to establish the operational conditions of each of the groups of samples; the above would be an important discussion on the characterization results of the evaluated parameters.

4.           The figures should have on the left margin the legend of the evaluated parameter and its respective units.

5.           The results obtained are not contrasted with other possible existing works in the literature. It is not clearly discussed which parameters in each analyzed method that should be taken into account to improve the quality percentage of Naphtha; it is suggested to the authors to deepen even more the discussion of the results, analyzing which parameters affect the process.

6.           In the section on sulfur concentration results, it is suggested to compare the results with other similar works; it should be discussed on which aspects and which are the causes of the prevalence of this parameter in naphtha; it is also suggested to include the key operational aspects that should be controlled to minimize the concentration of this parameter in naphtha.

7.           In relation to the parameter Distillation curve (ASTM D86), the results are presented, but there is no deep discussion of them; likewise, it is indicated that there are no significant differences, but there is no experimental design to support this statement, it is suggested to include the design that allows establishing this statement.

8.           The conclusions are very general; if there is an experimental design, it could be determined if there are significant differences between the oil from Brazil and the imported oil, and it should also indicate specifically where the differences lie and what positive and negative aspects there are between the two types of oils studied.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the following changes were made in the document attach.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors,

 

Thank you for your work. After evaluating how you addressed comments #13 to #18, I have noted that you have you have 2 sections of methods. In line 94 you have the section 2. Methods, which I believe it refers to the way in which the naphtha is processed, and you also have the section 4.2. Methods, which refer to the characterizations that you have performed to your samples. I believe that this later section is correctly labeled but the first section that you regard as method is part of a literature review. As I previously suggested, if you were following the classical article structure of Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions, the content of the section 2. Methods (also section 2.1. Conversion Processes and section 3. Analyzes) would better fit in the Introduction or in the Discussion rather than in a separate section between the 1. Introduction and the 4. Experiments. I would also remove the epigraph 4. Experiments and straight after the 1. Introduction I would write 2. Materials and Methods.

 

Also, Table 7 should not be included in the conclusions section but in the section 6. Discussion (still to be introduced in the manuscript), just after section 5.4. Distillation curve.

 

Regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the following changes were made:

Comment1:

Response: We appreciate your comments and considered all your suggestions. We are certain that your contributions have improved the content of our work and highlighted the scientific novelty and impact of this investigation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewing the work again, it is evident that some observations made previously have been integrated. The comments and corrections made to the document do not make it clear which sections will remain. It is suggested to send the copy fully corrected and indicating with a different font color or highlighting the added parts, as it appears in several parts. Finally, it is suggested to order the document, as the analysis item can be confused with the results and methodology item. I would appreciate it if the paper could be arranged to be able to see the changes made.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate the time to read the article, and the comments. Therefore, according to your recommendations, the following changes were made in the document in attach.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf