Determination of Viscosity, Density and Interfacial Tension of the Carbon Dioxide–Isopropanol, Argon–Isopropanol, Sulphur Hexafluoride–Isopropanol Binary Systems at 313.15 K and 333.15 K and at Elevated Pressures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work concerns research on various parameters of selected gas systems with isopropanol. The article is typically experimental. First impressions indicate that the work is important and may be of interest to other researchers, but has several important shortcomings:
1. It is true that the purpose of the study was indicated, but it was not specified on what basis the individual gas-isopropanol systems were selected? Was it determined arbitrarily, or do the authors see examples of applications for the tested mixtures? It is about the utilitarian aspect of work.
2. The paper presents test results and findings concerning trends in changes of individual parameters for the tested gas-isopropanol systems, but there is no indication of the reasons. Why is it as established? The work needs to be completed in this regard.
3. With reference to the above remark, complete the conclusions. Please indicate what the results of this work really mean?
4. After improving the conclusions, please complete the abstract with the most important conclusions from the research. Now it ends with stating that some results have been obtained.
5. The manuscript file is certainly not prepared with care. The first paragraph of the introduction is taken from the manuscript template. Figure 2 and the following appear twice or even three times in random places. Additionally, the descriptions in the drawings and their legend are hardly legible. This makes it very difficult to analyze the content of the work. It is unacceptable to send the manuscript prepared in this way for evaluation.
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper explains about “Viscosity, Density and Interfacial Tension of the Binary Systems of Isopropanol with Carbon Dioxide/Argon/Sulphur Hexafluoride at 313.15 K and 333.15 K”. The topic of the paper draws interest. However, the reviewer views the manuscript needs a significant effort to improve its quality to ensure publication in Processes. The reviewer recommends further major revision of the paper. Below are some comments to help the authors to improve the paper.
1. The reviewer noticed that the selected title was not comprehensive. Please replace it with another title that better describes the contents of this article.
2. The abstract should be written in concise, consists of background, reason or objectives of the study, methodology, focus on the key points of the results (please write in percentage and/or number) and writing in one paragraph. Please give attention about it.
3. The introduction section should address the novelty/gap between this study and the current research trend clearly. Moreover, please give statement in the end of introduction section about the objective of this study simply and clearly.
4. There are two pictures in figure 2-10, what's the difference? please revise.
5. Please replace figures 1, 2 and 4 with larger and clearer images.
6. Please give suggestion for the next study (in section conclusion) to improve the result.
7. Make a simple conclusion but cover all things that have been discussed previously in the results section.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
This paper explains about “Viscosity, Density and Interfacial Tension of the Binary Systems of Isopropanol with Carbon Dioxide/Argon/Sulphur Hexafluoride at 313.15 K and 333.15 K”. The topic of the paper draws interest. However, the reviewer views the manuscript needs a significant effort to improve its quality to ensure publication in Processes. The reviewer recommends further major revision of the paper. Below are some comments to help the authors to improve the paper.
- The reviewer noticed that the selected title was not comprehensive. Please replace it with another title that better describes the contents of this article.
Response: It has been replaced.
- The abstract should be written in concise, consists of background, reason or objectives of the study, methodology, focus on the key points of the results (please write in percentage and/or number) and writing in one paragraph. Please give attention about it.
Response: The abstract has been rewritten, please check the Manuscript file. Unfortunately, according to the template of the journal abstract section is limited to 200 words, and if we give numerical values for each system and property studied, we should also give the conditions (pressure and temperature), resulting in a higher word count.
- The introduction section should address the novelty/gap between this study and the current research trend clearly. Moreover, please give statement in the end of introduction section about the objective of this study simply and clearly.
Response: It has been given, please check the Manuscript file, lines 74-77.
- There are two pictures in figure 2-10, what's the difference? please revise.
Response: Unfortunately, there is a system error in the Figures and their description (we already wrote to Editor regarding this issue). There are no duplicate Figures in our original Manuscript uploaded to the system, please check the print screen below.
- Please replace figures 1, 2 and 4 with larger and clearer images.
Response: Figures were prepared according to the template of the journal, if necessary, we can send them in a separate file.
- Please give suggestion for the next study (in section conclusion) to improve the result.
Response: It has been given, please check the Manuscript file, lines 333-334.
- Make a simple conclusion but cover all things that have been discussed previously in the results section.
Response: It has been made, please check the Manuscript file, lines 330-332.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After analysing the revised manuscript and the cover letter, I think the paper has been substantially improved. The explanations of the authors are clear and sufficient. In my opinion the paper is worth to be published in the present form. I have no additional remarks.
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer see the authors have made significant improvements.
Therefore, the reviewer recommends accepting and publishing this paper in the Processes Journal.
