Microscopic Flow of CO2 in Complex Pore Structures: A Recent 10-Year Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors added everything necessary and I have no further comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Accept
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Upon a thorough examination of the manuscript, I recognize its significant contributions to the understanding of the microscopic flow of CO2 in complex pore structures. The depth of the review, the incorporation of advanced techniques, and the focus on future research directions are commendable. However, certain aspects would benefit from further refinement. The clarity in presentation could be enhanced, and a deeper examination of models and simulations, as well as an expansion of the real-world implications, would add substantial value to the work. Given the above considerations, I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication subject to minor revisions. These revisions should focus on:
1. The authors claim the gas sorption method was used to characterize the pore structures. The limitations of SEM, and MIP were mentioned in this work, What are the limitations for gas sorption? May need additional discussion on this.
2. Please provide all the chemical names with their abbreviation at the first time mentioned, e.g. EPNM.
3. Give a proper title for each figure, e.g. Figure 6, 7. It is supposed to be Figure 7. (a)..(b)…
4. Some missing papers should be referred to. e. g. Energy Technol.2021,9, 2000787;
There are several grammatical errors, please double-check before resubmission.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The paper of Liu and co-workers is a review of the mechanisms involved in the CO2 flow through the porous media. The paper is well written, collects the most important findings in the field. I have, however, one significant issue - How different is the flow of CO2 in porous media with respect to other gases? From my experience, and from what authors claim in the Manuscript, the heterogeneity is an important factor, whether it is a two-phase or many-component flow. I would like the authors to address the issue of transferability of the models - could they be used for the analysis of the flow of other compounds? If not - why not? What is the major difference between the models describing the CO2 and other gases? In other words - what is so specific about CO2?
In a related topic - the membranes used for selective transport of CO2 in the mixture of gases based on hollow alimuna fibers supported silica have been developed, and I think they deserve mentioning in the introduction to put the work in more context.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors reviewed the experimental, theoretical, and numerical simulation studies on the microscopic flow of CO2 in complex pore structures during the last decade. Generally speaking, this manuscript is well-written and covers a topic of interest to the journal’s readership. These results offer a valuable understanding of CO2 microscopic flow mechanisms. I would like to recommend its publication after a minor revision. Some suggestions below should be carefully considered.
1. Please also avoid "lump sum references", such as XXXXX [1-6]; all references should be cited with detailed and specific descriptions.
2. In the last paragraph of the Introduction, the authors should clearly mention the weak point of former works (identification of the gaps) and describe the current novelties.
3. Please discuss the previous review regarding the microscopic flow of CO2 in complex pore structures to justify the necessity of the present review.
4. Regarding the X-CT and NMR, numerous rock porous micro-structures have been reported on Digital Rocks Portal (https://www.digitalrocksportal.org/). Please discuss its significance in studying CO2 flow in complex pores.
5. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a hot topic in all fields. It would be better if the authors could discuss the application of AI in the CO2 microscopic flow.
6. LBM is a popular tool for the simulation of CO2 flow in complex structures. However, the recently related discussion is insufficient. For example, Wang et al. (doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108828) presented a hybrid way to tackle multiphase flow simulation in porous media. Chen et al. (doi.org/10.1063/5.0121565) developed a pore-scale lattice Boltzmann method to simulate coupled three-phase flow and reactive transport processes. Yin et al. (doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2021.12.010) identified the dominant transport mechanism in nanoporous media through LBM. The above investigations are signification. Please refresh the literature with the newly published work.
7. There is a big copyrights / IPR/ authorization issues with the present version, as most of the figures are reproduced from previously published papers, and I am not sure that the authors got written permission/copyrights to re-use them in this paper.
N/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear athors
The mentioned article solves a very important issue from the point of view of storing CO2 in geological structures. The problem is solved in the laboratory and it is very important to continue the work and especially to solve it on real drill cores from the given locations. Injection into saline porous materials is one of the promising structures for CO2 storage. But I have a fundamental problem, the mentioned article does not bring any new information, it just summarizes knowledge from other articles. Research articles should fundamentally include an element of novelty and not just inform what has been done within the given issue in general. This article is not suitable for publication in a research journal. This is just a search of the available documents. I do not see the added value of the authors in the given article.
Best regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript number: sustainability-2490208
Title: Microscopic flow of CO2 in complex pore structures: A recent 10-year review
General comments:
1. The novelty of this paper is weak. The authors are suggested to greatly improve the novelty of this paper.
2. Are there only two pore-scale simulation methods existing?
3. The latest research studies should be included in the literature review, for example:
Yu, S., Zhang, Q., Hao, J. L., Ma, W., Sun, Y., Wang, X., & Song, Y. (2023). Development of an extended STIRPAT model to assess the driving factors of household carbon dioxide emissions in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 325, 116502.
4. Figure 1 is just a very general figure. Could the authors please provide more information on this figure?
