Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is intersting in showing the effect of poisonning on CO2 with H2S.

Prior its publication I suggest some improvements

+ In the introduction the state of the art should clear shown

A table with the previous studies should be addes.

The literature review is very poor.

++ The exp data should be better expressed

The GHSV is not given

The calculations of conversions are not well expressed

since water is produced the flow at the exit will be lower then the total flow has to be taken into account

+++ Results / The selectivies are not presented

also what is the impact of H2S on the active sites ?

nothing is presented

The authors should focus on the results

+++ About XRD ? is there any change in the Ni particle size

This is a crucial point

H2S seems to be only a reversible poison which is quite surprising 

Is there any impact of the support

Please do the study on the support alone in order to compare

++++ Any TGA or TEM should be presented for better conclude on the effect of H2S on such materials

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

First of all, we thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions they offered to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have incorporated the reviewers' comments and suggestions into our revision of the manuscript. Our responses to the reviewers' comments are as follows.

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents results on metanation reaction, catalyst poisoning and regeneration.

The results seem interesting and are for sure useful towards a decarbonized society.

However, the poor use of English makes very difficult to read the manuscript and the experimental methods are not well described.

Authors should give the manuscript to an English speaker to improve the language. Also, a scientific article on CO2 methanation, a reaction that is well known, cannot have only 19 references. Authors should comment more literature and better compare their results.

 

Finally, even though it is not in the scope of the paper, authors should comment on the feasability of the process...is the regeneration too long? how much will it cost? how many regenerations per year?

 

More detailed comments, please see attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

First of all, we thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions they offered to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have incorporated the reviewers' comments and suggestions into our revision of the manuscript. Our responses to the reviewers' comments are as follows.

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf