Process Study and Simulation for the Recovery of 1,1,2,2,3,3,4−heptafluorocyclopentane by Reactive Distillation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Number: processes-1750445
Article type: Research Paper
Full Title: Process Study and Simulation for the Recovery of 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluorocyclopentane by Reactive Distillation
Remarks to the Authors:
The authors studied the recovery of 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluorocyclopentane (F7A) via reactive distillation in azeotropic cleaning agent. The authors obtained F7A with a purity of 99.4% and recovery of 73.1% using zinc chloride catalyst for the dehydration reaction of tert-amyl alcohol (TAA). I think that the topic of this investigation is in the scope of Processes and can be interesting for the journal audience. At the same time, I have found some weaknesses in the manuscript body. In my opinion, this work can be considered for publication in Processes but only after revision. Please find my comments below.
- The authors should emphasize the novelty of the manuscript in the abstract and/or conclusions.
- I suggest to the authors include the reaction scheme for the recovery of F7A by reactive distillation in the Introduction section.
- Some figures and table should be moved to the Supporting information file, e.g. Figs. 1-2, Table 1, Figs. 18-20.
- The authors should compare achieved results with well-known literature (recently published) data and present them in a table form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript concerns with “Process Study and Simulation for the Recovery of
1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluorocyclopentane by Reactive Distillation”. This study was conducted with zinc chloride as the catalyst, the dehydration reaction of tert-amyl alcohol (TAA) was carried out and the reaction kinetics were measured. Besides, through the correlation of experimental data, the reaction kinetic equation was obtained. Under the optimized operating conditions, F7A with a purity of 99.4% and recovery of 73.1% were obtained by the reactive distillation process. Herein, I am summarizing below some of my concerns regarding the manuscript:
1. The author has compiled a comprehensive and detailed explanation however the presentation needs to be improved. References are very Old (Better to revise with some updated references).
2. All Figure’s presentation is poor that should be replaced with better resolution. It is suggested to keep the same format for all graphs with axis scale and text in bold. It is also suggested to use 2 graphs in a single row and separated by putting letters a and b (See figure 4, SEM images). It is also not necessary to put all figures in the main text. Some figures can be added to supplementary data (Supporting information)
After careful reading, the manuscript, the overall text, and English grammar have some typo mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
It is noticed that the author's explanation with the corresponding figures is matchless. See figures 9 and 10. (Almost all figures' numbers must be revised). All figures should have the same font size and type to keep the continuity.
There are also many grammar and spelling mistakes.
Author Response
Mainly revised portions are marked up using the “Track Changes” function of Micro Soft word. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as flowing:
（1）It is noticed that the author's explanation with the corresponding figures is matchless. See figures 9 and 10. (Almost all figures' numbers must be revised). All figures should have the same font size and type to keep the continuity.
Author reply:
The explanation of figure 9 and 10 was updated in the paper. All figures were revised with the same font size and type. The figure numbers in the article were modified.
（2）There are also many grammar and spelling mistakes.
Author reply:
The grammar and spelling mistakes in the article were revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The author made corrections as per suggestion, hence accepted.
