Evaluation of Crude Oil Wax Dissolution Using a Hydrocarbon-Based Solvent in the Presence of Ionic Liquid

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Authors of the manuscript report about dissolution of wax by hydrocarbons in presence of ionic liquids. The following points should be improved

1. Reference 10 is incorrect.

2.     The study is mostly theorectical, the use of ethyl acetate (not a hydrocarbon solvent) + IL in practice is much more expensive than the use of xylene, and it should be shown in manuscript.

3.    Recomendation: It would be interesting to investigate and compare wax, extracted with solvent and which were left in a vial.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors have explicitly outlined their objective, which focuses on the wax dissolution performance in hydrocarbon-based wax soak solvents with and without ionic liquids. The authors have addressed several optimization parameters, including the wax soaking time, the mass ratio of ionic liquid, and the combination pairs of wax soak solvents. However, several questions remain unclear, and the manuscript requires further consideration after addressing the following concerns.

 

1. In section 3.4, the authors have determined the optimal soaking time to be 90 minutes based on only three sets of data (30, 90, and 150 minutes). Please provide an explanation of why the optimal soaking time cannot be at 60 minutes or another duration, or why it just takes three soaking times to predict the optimal soaking time.

2. The results presented in Figure 5 are a subset of the results already shown in Figure 4 and do not provide additional information. Please clarify the reason for including Figure 5.

3. In section 3.5, assuming that the optimal soaking time is 90 minutes, please explain why the evaluation of solvents in the presence of ionic liquids is based on 30 minutes at a non-equilibrium state rather than 90 minutes at the equilibrium state.

4. It is recommended to provide references to clarify whether the findings from previous literature were derived from experiments, theory, or simulations in line 289.

 

Some minor issues:

1. In the caption of Figure 6, please remove the word "at" for clarity.

2. Please address the fact that there are two figures with the label "Figure 7".

3. It is better to keep the chemical expressions consistent throughout the manuscript, for instance, either use "CL" or "Cl" to represent chloride.

4. In line 277, please clarify the meaning of the "optimum" mass ratio of IL:wax. Because there is no optimum mass ratio based on your conclusion.

5. Please rephrase the sentence "The mechanisms worked in a way where the cation and the anion of the ionic liquid were more attracted to the wax and another to the solvent itself resulting in pulling of each other hence increased the dissolution of the wax in the solvent itself" to improve its clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx