Study on Plugging Material and Plugging Mechanism of Crude Oil Sand Water Filter Pipe

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Prof.,

Thanks for your kind processing of our manuscript water-2542526. We have made necessary changes as suggested by editor and reviewers. The point-by-point answers to the comments and suggestions were listed as below：

Response to Reviewer 

Q1: Please do not write an abstract this way. An abstract should be able to stand alone and independent of the paper. The research problem should be good described and entail a brief introduction, problem statement, method, results, conclusion and recommendation. Moreover, an abstract need to state more clearly aim of your work as well. I suggest that the Authors should rephrase it.

Answer: Thank you for your constructive comments. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. We argue that your suggestions are value for us. We are extremely sorry for this poor article and we have re-written the abstract. Thank you again for your positive advice.

Q2: The introduction is not very strong. It is very poor in information. It lacks a review of previous research. It would need to identify what led to the design and selection of this segment of research and what was conducted in previous research that led to this. It would also be extremely important to emphasize the novel nature of the research.

Answer: Thank you for your feedback on the introduction. I apologize for the lack of information and review of previous research in the initial response. In order to strengthen the introduction, it is essential to provide a comprehensive review of prior research related to the topic. This would involve identifying the key studies and findings that have been conducted in the field and explaining how these studies have shaped the current research design and selection. We have added series of references to confirm our research.

Q3: Methods and Materials:

This section needs many changes and clarifications, including:

• Detailsofthe chemical reagents used are missing, e.g. manufacturer, concentration, etc. 
• Similarlywiththe experimental instruments used. Manufacturer? Model? etc. None of this information is present. 
• Thereisno explanation of why specifically these oil blocks were chosen and how they differed.

Figure 1 does not contribute anything, the bottles visible in it do not differ in anything. Similarly with Figure 2. It's hard to observe anything in these photos.

• In addition, it would be useful to add aflowchartof the procedure used - this always catches the reader's attention.
• I believe that the results and discussion section is the most important and also the main section of any article. Replacing it with subsection 4.1 causes the reader to get lost in thearticle.
• A lotof theinformation contained in the rest of the article should be placed in the Research Materials and Methods section. In its current form, the article becomes more and more chaotic.

Answer: Thank you for your kind advice on the presentation of the study results, methodology, and discussion sections. I apologize for any confusion or lack of clarity in these sections. To address the concern regarding the readability of the results section, the descriptions can be simplified and reworded in a more accessible manner. Details of the chemical reagents used and the experimental instruments used were added to the manuscript. We have spared no effort to correct the paper and eventually thanks for your valuable suggestion.

Q4: Results and Discussion

The results of the study arepresented in an unreadable way. They should be reworded a bit and descriptions should be simplified. Results arepresented but there is no explanation of the phenomena occurring. In addition, the sections on methodology placed in the same place as the research results bring absolute chaos to the article. Moreover, other significant problems include the lack of discussion. The discussion should explicitly express a comparison of the results obtained with existing knowledge on the subject. It must clearly indicate what is completely new in the presented results and in what these results differ from the findings of other authors, and in what they coincide with published opinions. The discussion should emphasize newly opened problems and the need to solve them. This is completely missing.

Another important point to note is that the Authors did not state whether they performed any statistical analyses?Also, was Figure 10 made by the authors and owned by them or was it taken from the literature?

Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the presentation of the results and discussion sections. I apologize for any confusion or lack of clarity in these areas. Based on your comments, we've worked hard on the manuscript. The results have been reworded and simplified to improve readability. Descriptions of the phenomena occurring have been added to provide a better understanding of the results. The discussion section has explicitly compared the obtained results with existing knowledge on the subject. We have performed a lot of statistical analyses. We clarify that Figure 10 was created by us and is owned by us.

Q5: Conclusion: The reader should get the real conclusions at the end of the study. This section is now written as a summary - but what are the conclusions of your research? I suggest bulletingout specific conclusions.

Answer: Thank you for your insightful suggestions on the conclusion section. You are correct that the researcher should clearly present the conclusions of the study in this section, rather than just summarizing the results. To address this concern, we have revised the conclusion section to provide specific and concise bullet points that highlight the key findings and conclusions of the study. This will ensure that readers can easily grasp the main takeaways from the research.

We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly and have revised the manuscript in accordance with Reviewer’s comments and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.

 

Sincerely yours,

Bingchuan Yang

1 Hunan Road, Liaocheng University,

Liaocheng 252000, Shandong, P. R. China

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is interesting, however, a few minor suggestions are recommended. 1. A few more specifics can be included in the abstract relevant to the experimental design. 2. Although it is a communication paper, a mapping of the existing literature on the plugging mechanism of crude oil sand water filter pipes, and a comparison with this research would be a plus. 3. There is no mention that the NMR results are repeated. The values in Table 1 should be averaged by repeating the sample multiple times. 4. Please include/mention the important groups in Figure 6. 5. Figure 9: What equipment is used to assess the results in Fig 9. Please mention the shear rate as well. 6. Figure 12 is not clear. "Figure 12" is also repeated. Please rectify

A few grammatical and typo-errors are found in the manuscript. Please rectify.

Author Response

Dear Prof.,

Thanks for your kind processing of our manuscript water-2542526. We have made necessary changes as suggested by editor and reviewers. The point-by-point answers to the comments and suggestions were listed as below：

Response to Reviewer 

Q1: A few more specifics can be included in the abstract relevant to the experimental design.

Answer: Thanks for your kindly recommend. We have added lots of details about the experimental design in the abstract.

Q2: Although it is a communication paper, a mapping of the existing literature on the plugging mechanism of crude oil sand water filter pipes, and a comparison with this research would be a plus.

Answer: Thank you for your constructive recommend. We have added the reference about the plugging mechanism of crude oil sand water filter pipes. In the meanwhile, we have compared Ma et al. research in the instruction section.

Q3: There is no mention that the NMR results are repeated. The values in Table 1 should be averaged by repeating the sample multiple times.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We confirmed the proportion of the component of crude oil through five repetitions of the experiment rather than the NMR and we listed the results of the averages in Table 1. We have added a specific description in the manuscript.

Q4: Please include/mention the important groups in Figure 6.

Answer: Thanks for your insightful advice. We have mentioned the important groups in Figure 6.

Q5: Figure 9: What equipment is used to assess the results in Fig 9. Please mention the shear rate as well.

Answer: Thanks for your kindly recommend. The results in Fig 9 were investigated by microscope visual rheometer (MCR302, Anton Paar, Graz, Steiermark, Austria).

The shear rate is 0.01~10 s^－1. In the meanwhile, we added the details of equipment in the manuscript.

Q6: Figure 12 is not clear. "Figure 12" is also repeated. Please rectify.

Answer: Thanks for your kindly advice. We have changed the Figure and corrected the number in the manuscript.

We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly and have revised the manuscript in accordance with Reviewer’s comments and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.

 

Sincerely yours,

Bingchuan Yang

1 Hunan Road, Liaocheng University,

Liaocheng 252000, Shandong, P. R. China

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Specific comments can be found in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English can be improved further.

Author Response

Q1: Line 78, “dry it” should be “dried”.

Answer: Thank you for your kind suggestion. We have corrected the error in the manuscript.

 

Q2: Line 117, “1.5-2.5 hour” should be “1.5-2.5 hours”.

Answer: Thank you for your kind advice. We have replaced the “1.5-2.5 hour” instead of “1.5-2.5 hours”.

 

Q3: The spelling error in line 179, “lauyer” should be corrected.

Answer: Thank you for your insightful advice. We have correct the “lauyer” into “layer”.

 

Q4: Line 188, “which” should be deleted.

Answer: Thank you for your recommend. We have deleted the “which”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper analyzes the main components of the blockage through on-site sampling and puts forward a plugging mechanism. Through analysis and testing, it is determined that the main components of the plug are asphaltene crude oil, and the proportion of aromatic components and saturated components is close. It opens a convenience avenue to deal with congestion more specifically and promotes further development of the loose sandstone oil reservoirs. I powerfully recommend its publication in the journal Water after a minor revision.

 

1) Line 25, “frequently sanding” need need correction;

2) Line 112 and 113, “110℃,  -1000KPa” should have space between number and unit.

 

Author Response

Dear Prof.,

Thanks for your kind processing of our manuscript water-2542526. We have made necessary changes as suggested by editor and reviewers. The point-by-point answers to the comments and suggestions were listed as below：

Response to Reviewer 

Q1: Line 25, “frequently sanding” need correction;

Answer: Thanks for kind advice. We have corrected it in the manuscript.

Q2: Line 112 and 113, “110℃, -1000KPa” should have space between number and unit.

Answer: Thanks for kind advice. We have added the space between number and unit in the manuscript.

We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly and have revised the manuscript in accordance with Reviewer’s comments and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.

 

Sincerely yours,

Bingchuan Yang

1 Hunan Road, Liaocheng University,

Liaocheng 252000, Shandong, P. R. China

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

In this paper, Zhang and Yang preliminarily analyze the plugging mechanism of crude oil sand water filters using technologies such as vacuum drying, condersation reflux, and chromatographic separation. It is crucial to develop the biological self-cleaning anti-clogging high permeability sand filter tube for addressing the problem of easy blockage of traditional sand control tools and enhancing the efficiency of oil production. Therefore, I strongly recommend its publication in Water.
1) Line 210, "By comparing" should be "Comparing";
2) Line 220, "Gu Dong" should be "Gudong"

Author Response

Dear Prof.,

Thanks for your kind processing of our manuscript water-2542526. We have made necessary changes as suggested by editor and reviewers. The point-by-point answers to the comments and suggestions were listed as below：

Response to Reviewer 

Q1: Line 210, "By comparing" should be "Comparing".

Answer: Thanks for kind advice. We have amended the error in the manuscript.

 

Q2: Line 220, "Gu Dong" should be "Gudong".

Answer: Thanks for kind suggestion. We have corrected the error in the manuscript.

 

We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly and have revised the manuscript in accordance with Reviewer’s comments and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.

 

Sincerely yours,

Bingchuan Yang

1 Hunan Road, Liaocheng University,

Liaocheng 252000, Shandong, P. R. China

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have corrected the critical remarks suggested in the review.

The paper is now in better condition than before - the corrections make difference. I recommend the paper for publication in the Water journal.