Measurement of the Diffusion Coefficient of Xenon in Self-Sintered Nanopore Graphite for Molten Salt Reactor
and Zhanjun Liu 4,5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting, but only three points on a line is not meaningful; it should be done with at least 7 or more points.
The Xe diffusion effect is mesmerizing in graphite, but what are the pore size, surface area, and textural properties of the carbonaceous material to observe if this is carried out by diffusion in the pores? What kind of isotherms does the material have?
Equations 10 to later are not adequately documented and should be studied with other spectra for statistical analysis.
It is clear that the continuity equation 1-9, which is used in the study of transport phenomena, is the basis, but it must delve deeper into the diffusion law equation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Self-sintered nanopore-isotropic (~ 40nm) graphite (SSNG) must be characterized by means of RAMAN spectroscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy, High resolution Scanning Electron Microscopy, TGA, etc.
2. The conclusions must be reinforced.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of Manuscript carbon-2660754 by Li et al.
In this manuscript, the authors studied an interesting and important topic: the diffusion of Xe-135 within graphite in molten salt reactors. The authors used Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) to measure the diffusivity of Xe in nanoporous graphite made from green pitch coke. However, due to the limited data provided, my recommendation is to reconsider after major revision. My comments are listed below.
1. The authors claimed to fabricate nanoporous graphite with 40 nm pore size. However, no evidence was provided in the manuscript to support this claim. Was the 40 nm measured directly by microscopy, indirectly by adsorption, or other methods?
2. Could you please explain to more details how Xe26+ was injected to a certain depth while the injection side had almost no Xe26+ residence? Is there any evidence supporting the diagram shown in Figure 2, where the Xe26+ layer was in the middle of the graphite.
3. Equations (2) – (9) are not necessary. Fick’s second law is generally considered as common knowledge in this field.
4. The diagrams in Figure 2 do not contain a coordinate system. This makes Equation (11) confusing. It is not clear what x and y directions are.
5. Above Equation (12), the authors mentioned “iodine profile” while the manuscript is not related to iodine. Is it a typo?
6. The author used only two datapoints to establish a linear correlation between [W(t)]2 and t. At least 4-5 datapoints are recommended for the linear correlation to be convincing.
7. It would be ideal if the dependence of D as a function of temperature can be measured. As pointed out by the author in Equation (15), this allows the derivation of the activation energy Ea.
8. Is the diffusivity of 6.5e-20 m2 s-1 considered low or high? Are there any comparisons in the literature?
9. Please insert space between numbers and units.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English in this manuscript reaches publication standard.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper looks fine.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed my concerns and I recommend publication.
