ZIF for CO2 Capture: Structure, Mechanism, Optimization, and Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, a three-dimensional high-resolution seismic detection has been applied in order to detect the structure of gas hydrates deposits. This manuscript is compatible with the scope of a “sustainability” journal as it is trying to present a technology for using gas hydrates reservoirs as a future source of energy. However, the structure of this manuscript should be revised as it is not ready at this stage for publication because of the following comments:
The structure of the manuscript is between the literature review and the research article. As this manuscript is a search article, the authors are recommended to correct and improve the structure. From the beginning of the manuscript until the end of section 2, it is containing the literature review while the methodology of the work was not explained well. Especially the details of the seismic method are not clear and need to be discussed and explain earlier in the literature review. The results of this study have not been explained and discussed in detail. The manuscript does not contain the methodology and result and discussion section. The methodology and the details of the methodology is really important to be explained in the manuscript. Figure one is not mentioned in the text body and it is started with figure 2. Tables 1 and 2 are not referred to in the text and the authors just pasted these tables without any explanation.
Based on this, I recommend a major revision of this manuscript
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the introduction section, in lines 23-36, this paragraph may be summarized as one sentence. What’s the point of introducing Figure 1. (a) and (b)? Why do CO2 County/region-wise emission levels matter? Are you going to discuss the policy/application implications in different regions/countries?
Any references for Figure 2?
In Table 1., 7 types of materials/technologies were introduced. What are the types of these materials/technologies? Membrane separation, physical adsorption, or chemical absorption? Also, the font of Table 1 looks not consistent with other tables and figures.
Any references for the statements in lines 64-65, and lines 67-69? Some information in lines 61-79 looks repetitive with Table 1. Some information may be merged into Table 1.
In Tables 3, 4, and 5, please carefully check whether there are copyright issues when you directly copy figures from other published journals. Also, this table needs to be redesigned (format, Table 3, number 17, [49]).
This paper includes abundant information from previous papers/reports. However, the synchronization/synthesization and discussion of these studies are insufficient. It may be interesting to synchronize and discuss the technical and/or economic tradeoffs, and applicability among different technologies/analyses/tools.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
