Simplified Model for Concentration Analysis of Catalytic Conversion of Carbon Gas into Hydrogen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1. Please clarify the title, because the article is about hydrogen production, not about methane synthesis, which can also happen in such a reactor by choosing the appropriate catalyst and temperature. Suggestion for a title “Simplified Model for Concentration Analysis of Catalytic Conversion of Carbon Gas into Hydrogen”

2. In the introduction, the authors should explain where the carbon monoxide could be collected (from the exhaust of internal combustion engine vehicles?) and find experimental evidence from the scientific literature that the reaction CO + H2O = H2 + CO2 occurs under appropriate conditions, and only then propose their model for the reactor.

3. Regarding pictures 1 and 2 - they should be redone according to reaction (1): CO + H2O = H2 + CO2, and not automatically copied from the literature for completely different processes

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The production/utilization of non-fossil energy has risen wide attention for mitigating environment issues caused by excessive carbon emissions. This article simulated the production of H₂ through COMSOL Multiphysics® and the optimization of three parameters (inlet speed, reactor geometry, and inlet concentration) was presented. There are some concerns that the authors should address well before further considering publication. The detailed comments are as follows:

1. The "natural gas" is more commonly known as methane gas. It would be better to use a more direct expression in title.

2. Some grammars and expression should be double-checked and revised in the manuscript. For example, "It's easy to note that the production of CO2 is most that ?2" in Line 169. And for equation (2) in Line 62, is the two "m" misprint? Because there is the definition of "n" in the following line.

3. Three parameters were optimized in this work. It is recommended to use the unified name in the manuscript.

4. In Section 2, the excessive discussion about factors that interfere with the rate of a reaction is redundant. The definitions, such as activation energy and catalyst, are generally and widely known and do not merit extensive description.

5. Some indispensable footnotes in tables are needed to give readers a better understanding.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the authors, suggestions have been taken into account, images 1 and 2 of the article have also been optimized.