On-Site Experimental Study on Low-Temperature Deep Waste Heat Recovery of Actual Flue Gas from the Reformer of Hydrogen Production
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript " On-site experimental study on low-temperature deep waste heat recovery of actual flue gas from the reformer of hydrogen production " Wang et al. presents a new anti-corrosion, high-efficiency and low-pressure-drop flue gas condensing heat exchanger used in hydrogen production reformer to recover the total heat from flue gas. The energy saving performances of the FGCHE are analyzed through on-site experimental test and theoretical analysis, which has good prospects for industrial applications. In general, the manuscript is well organized and clearly presented. It can be accepted after minor revision. The comments are presented as follows:
1.The FGCHE as the key equipment of heat recovery system, the details such as " counter current pattern " are suggested to be more described.
2. What is the cause of the pressure fluctuation in Figure 3(b)? It is suggested to analyze further.
3. What is the main question addressed by the research?
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
5. a, b, c in the picture are best placed on the upper left.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive suggestions. After careful consideration of your comments, we have revised "Introduction", the details in "System description", " On-site measurement method " for calculating the sensible heat, latent heat, and the total thermal efficiency of the HPR system. In addition, the reasons for graphical changes have been added, and a, b, c in the figures are placed on the upper left the figures. Finally, we have rewritten the "Conclusion" and added the findings, limitations, and future perspectives at the end of this chapter Here is our answer for the specific questions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
I have some questions and comments about the article.
My questions and comments:
1. The abstract repeats the information from the introduction, and does not inform what the article is about or encourage it.
2. Figure 1 and table 1 should not be in the introduction, if figure 1 is created by the authors then it should be done in a better clear graphic.
3. Table 1 is hard to read, I didn't find any information in the text, what does it imply?
4. Figure 2 is hard to read, it should be divided into sections that will be described in the text.
5. The authors in table 5 show sensors collecting data, not all I found in figure 2, it should be emphasized.
6. Lines 152, 153 repeats
Fuel gas calorific capacity for the HPR
The fuel gas calorific capacity is given by
7. Line 154 :
volume flow rate of fuel gas fuel gas volume flow rate, ????
8. Line 156, 157
Exhausted heat amount
The exhausted heat amount etc.
9. The authors list a lot of equations, why? Where are they used and for what?
10. There are linear fitting in the figures, what do they result from, what trends can we deduce from this?
11. Figures and diagrams should be corrected, the text does not always contain an analysis of the data in the figures.
The article contains a lot of repetition, it is inconsistent, it lacks any logical reasoning. It looks more like a report than an article that wants to present something interesting scientifically/
Dear authors
I have some questions and comments about the article.
My questions and comments:
1. The abstract repeats the information from the introduction, and does not inform what the article is about or encourage it.
2. Figure 1 and table 1 should not be in the introduction, if figure 1 is created by the authors then it should be done in a better clear graphic.
3. Table 1 is hard to read, I didn't find any information in the text, what does it imply?
4. Figure 2 is hard to read, it should be divided into sections that will be described in the text.
5. The authors in table 5 show sensors collecting data, not all I found in figure 2, it should be emphasized.
6. Lines 152, 153 repeats
Fuel gas calorific capacity for the HPR
The fuel gas calorific capacity is given by
7. Line 154 :
volume flow rate of fuel gas fuel gas volume flow rate, ????
8. Line 156, 157
Exhausted heat amount
The exhausted heat amount etc.
9. The authors list a lot of equations, why? Where are they used and for what?
10. There are linear fitting in the figures, what do they result from, what trends can we deduce from this?
11. Figures and diagrams should be corrected, the text does not always contain an analysis of the data in the figures.
The article contains a lot of repetition, it is inconsistent, it lacks any logical reasoning. It looks more like a report than an article that wants to present something interesting scientifically/
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive suggestions. After careful consideration of your comments, we have revised "Introduction", the details in "System description", " On-site measurement method " for calculating the sensible heat, latent heat, and the total thermal efficiency of the HPR system. In addition, the reasons for graphical changes have been added, and a, b, c in the figures are placed on the upper left the figures. Finally, we have rewritten the "Conclusion" and added the findings, limitations, and future perspectives at the end of this chapter Here is our answer for the specific questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Mu et al. reported a flue gas condensing heat exchanger with low consumption and pressure drop to recover the heat from exhausted gas. The manuscript discussed the heat recovery system in terms of its design, on-site measurement, and the energy saving performance and exergy efficiency. This work is interesting and may provide some insights for the practical application for the heat recovery.
1. How to distinguish the sensible heat and latent heat in the system?
2. In the introduction, the authors mentioned that there are few investigations about latent heat recovery from HPR of petroleum refining system compared with sensible heat recovery. Therefore, why is latent heat recovery important? And the novelty of the system presented in this work for latent heat recovery needs further demonstration.
3. The detailed data analysis of total thermal efficiency of the HPR system should be involved in the method.
4. Is the cost of exchanger materials taken into account when analyzing socio-economic and environmental benefits?
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive suggestions. After careful consideration of your comments, we have revised "Introduction", the details in "System description", " On-site measurement method " for calculating the sensible heat, latent heat, and the total thermal efficiency of the HPR system. In addition, the reasons for graphical changes have been added, and a, b, c in the figures are placed on the upper left the figures. Finally, we have rewritten the "Conclusion" and added the findings, limitations, and future perspectives at the end of this chapter Here is our answer for the specific questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Meaningful results are observed. Some comments are given as follows:
1. The bibliography may be improved, as there are 17 out of 40 references, i.e. over 42% older than 5 years. Also, there are 9 out of 40 references, i.e. over 22% older than 10 years.
2. The literature review in the introduction should review the literature, but not only write them there.
3. Few literature and references are given to Sustainability. Is your work well targeted?
4. The conclusion section is weak. The authors must provide a comprehensive discussion of the findings, limitations, and recommendations from the results. Also, clarify and justify future works.
5. This version needs professional proofreading to address the numerous grammatical errors and writing mechanics.
This version needs professional proofreading to address the numerous grammatical errors and writing mechanics.
examples:
high-efficiency and low-pressure-drop--> high-efficiency, and low-pressure-drop
pollution and carbon reduction [9,10], pollution, and carbon reduction [9,10]
the first and second law--> the first and second laws
...
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive suggestions. After careful consideration of your comments, we have revised "Introduction", the details in "System description", " On-site measurement method " for calculating the sensible heat, latent heat, and the total thermal efficiency of the HPR system. In addition, the reasons for graphical changes have been added, and a, b, c in the figures are placed on the upper left the figures. Finally, we have rewritten the "Conclusion" and added the findings, limitations, and future perspectives at the end of this chapter Here is our answer for the specific questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, now the article is consistent and reads well.
I would work on the English language to better understand the article's message.
Dear authors, now the article is consistent and reads well.
I would work on the English language to better understand the article's message.
Author Response
Thanks for your comment. We have also carefully revised the English language to better understand the article's message.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I have no further technical comment
This version still needs professional proofreading to address the grammatical errors and writing mechanics.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive suggestions. The manuscript has been carefully proofread and revised by professionals. The added and deleted statements were marked up using the “Track Changes” function. Here is our answer for the specific questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
