Synthesis and Plugging Mechanism of New Water-Swellable Rubber Particles for Fractured Pores in High Water-Cut Reservoirs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, water-swelling rubber particles were designed, and their properties were measured, which effectively improved the plugging performance. I suggest publishing on Processes after making some modifications.

1. Please write in the last paragraph of the introduction that the conventional rubber particles need to be improved to solve the problem of the existence of such plugging agents.

2. Some languages in the abstract and introduction are not fluent and need to be revised slightly after full reading.

3. Please modify the punctuation marks in icon questions, such as Fig3.

4. Please confirm whether 6) in Section 2.3 is changed to (6).

5.Please delete the first line in Section 2.4 (1).

6.Please pay attention to the paragraph problems in the text, such as (1) in Section 2.5.

7.Please confirm whether the western fonts in the text are uniform.

 

8.The language of the paper needs to be carefully modified, such as using correct capitalization (such as whether the first letter of cut in the topic needs to be capitalized), etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting research work. The authors use water swelling rubber particles to achieve the purpose of sealing fractures in high water cut reservoirs. As a whole, the research content is relatively complete, and the relevant experimental design and completion are relatively good, and relatively good results have been obtained. However, there are also the following problems:

(1) The title of the paper is suggested to be carefully revised. The scope of the current title is too large, and there are some mismatches with the research content in the manuscript. The author is suggested to consider carefully;

(2) In this paper, the synthesis of water swelling rubber is done, but this process is relatively simple, and the corresponding characterization is not carried out. It is suggested to add this part;

(3) How to carry out the corresponding experiments for the core in Figure 5, it is recommended to make a more detailed description in combination with Figure 4;

(4) Figure 8 shows the occurrence of filamentous objects, how is this formed;

(5) It is suggested that the author revise the language carefully to improve the readability of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research of this paper has carried out some valuable work, which is of great significance for fracture plugging in high water cut reservoirs. The main comments are as follows:

(1) In the "Introduction", the literature analyzed by the author has been studied many years ago. It is necessary for the author to analyze the literature in recent years to ensure the novelty of the views.

(2) In the " Introduction ", the main contributions and innovative work of this paper need to be clarified, which will help to more prominently reflect the research value of this paper.

(3) In the part of experimental materials, the synthesis and research of materials use too many serial numbers. If the processes are written in a paragraph, it will be more coherent and help to improve the understanding of the author's description.

(4) The author has well explained the experimental results of rubber suspension and plugging performance ,etc., but the reason for experimental phenomenon needs to be described in an appropriate paragraph.

(5) The conclusion part needs to be rewritten, and there is a lot of duplication between this part and the abstract. The conclusion mainly describes some important research results of this paper, which needs to be distinguished from the abstract.

(6) The quality of figures and tables needs to be improved, the language of the manuscript also needs to be modified , and there are some grammatical errors in the paper.

(7) In the reference part, most of the references cited by the author were many years ago, but few references were cited in the last five years, which needs to be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has revised the manuscript according to the review comments, and the manuscript can be accepted for publication.