Production of Biofuel Additives Using Catalytic Bioglycerol Etherification: Kinetic Modelling and Reactive Distillation Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Production of Biofuel Additives Using Catalytic Bioglycerol 2 Etherification: Kinetic Modelling and Reactive Distillation De-sign

In this work Al-Rabiah et al synthesized biofuel using a solid catalyst, Sn(II) phosphomolybdate (Sn1.5PMo12O40). The work is interesting and is suitable for publication after minor revision:

1. Cite some paper in Line 80, "Even though other studies in the literature 80 investigated etherification reactions"

2. Catalyst preparation procedure is missing

3. Figure 1-4 should be mentioned and explain in the text.

4. Provide a SCALE BAR in Figure 1

5. Check legend in Figure 2, difractogram, should be diffractogram

6. Figure 20 text in the figures are too small and not really visible, enlarge the font size.

Author Response

Responses to the comments of the reviewer

Title: Production of Biofuel Additives Using Catalytic Bioglycerol Etherification: Kinetic Modelling and Reactive Distillation Design

In this work Al-Rabiah et al synthesized biofuel using a solid catalyst, Sn(II) phosphomolybdate (Sn1.5PMo12O40). The work is interesting and is suitable for publication after minor revision:

Dear Reviewer

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the thoughtful comments on this manuscript and for the insightful points to improve it. The manuscript has been revised as per the given comments, and our responses to each comment are shown below.

1. Cite some paper in Line 80, "Even though other studies in the literature 80 investigated etherification reactions"

Response: This comment has been considered and the citations have been added to the revised version of the manuscript.

2. Catalyst preparation procedure is missing

Response: The catalyst preparation procedure has been included in the revised version.

3. Figure 1-4 should be mentioned and explain in the text.

Response: This comment has been considered and the figures are now mentioned in the revised version of the manuscript.

4. Provide a SCALE BAR in Figure 2

Response: The scale bar was included in Figure 2, as suggested.

5. Check legend in Figure 2, difractogram, should be diffractogram

Response: The authors thank the reviewer. The correction was done.

6. Figure 20 text in the figures are too small and not really visible, enlarge the font size.

Response: This comment has been considered and the font size in the figures has been increased in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript catalysts-1960896 reports on the Production of Biofuel Additives Using Catalytic Bioglycerol Etherification: Kinetic Modelling and Reactive Distillation Design. Overall, the work is interesting and presenting acceptable results. However, there are some irregularities which should be corrected. The language is not consistent and many times the sentences are redundant with overused words. Having said that I recommend major revisions before to warrant publication in Catalysts.

1)    The present abstract highlights the results. Normally an abstract should include the above along with stating briefly the purpose of the study undertaken and meaningful conclusions based on the obtained results. I would expect brief, yet concise, the quantitative description in the abstract.

2)    Fig. 4(a) - what authors can explain about the main peaks between 2000 and 500 wavenumbers.? Major peak numbers should be assigned with representative functional groups.

3)    Authors have reported too many figures and tables in this study. My suggestion is just to included only important figures and tables, the extra data in the form of tables and figures should be transferred into supplementary part of the paper.

4)    What was the sample size? It needs to be clearly mentioned in the methodology. Add a footnote explaining the coated values were taken from the duplicate/triplicate samples.

5)    The analysis methods using SEM, FTIR and BET should be included in the material and methods sections.

6)    Figures like, figure 18 should not be the part of the main paper.

 

7)    The quality of some of the figures should be improved, i.e. Fig. 7, 11, 13

 

 

Author Response

Responses to the comments of the reviewer

The manuscript catalysts-1960896 reports on the Production of Biofuel Additives Using Catalytic Bioglycerol Etherification: Kinetic Modelling and Reactive Distillation Design. Overall, the work is interesting and presenting acceptable results. However, there are some irregularities which should be corrected. The language is not consistent and many times the sentences are redundant with overused words. Having said that I recommend major revisions before to warrant publication in Catalysts.

Dear Reviewer

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the thoughtful comments on this manuscript and for the insightful points to improve it. The manuscript has been revised as per the given comments, and our responses to each comment are shown below.

1) The present abstract highlights the results. Normally an abstract should include the above along with stating briefly the purpose of the study undertaken and meaningful conclusions based on the obtained results. I would expect brief, yet concise, the quantitative description in the abstract.

Response: This comment has been considered and the main purpose description of the study has been included in the abstract of the revised version of the manuscript.

2) Fig. 4(a) - what authors can explain about the main peaks between 2000 and 500 wavenumbers.? Major peak numbers should be assigned with representative functional groups.

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for the question. This is the fingerprint region of these catalysts, where the typical absorption bands are placed. In the current version, all the vibrations are adequately assigned to two infrared spectra.

3) Authors have reported too many figures and tables in this study. My suggestion is just to included only important figures and tables, the extra data in the form of tables and figures should be transferred into supplementary part of the paper.

Response: This comment has been considered and some of the tables and figures have been removed from the revised version of the manuscript.

4) What was the sample size? It needs to be clearly mentioned in the methodology. Add a footnote explaining the coated values were taken from the duplicate/triplicate samples. 2

Response: The authors thank the reviewer. We suppose that the sample size asked by the reviewer is the crystallite size. The values were included in the text when diffractograms were discussed. In the current version, we included a commentary explaining that measurements were collected in duplicate.

5) The analysis methods using SEM, FTIR and BET should be included in the material and methods sections.

Response: Thank you for the comment. All the analysis methods and techniques employed have been included in the current version

6) Figures like, figure 18 should not be the part of the main paper.

Response:This comment has been considered and the figure has been removed from the revised version of the manuscript.

7) The quality of some of the figures should be improved, i.e. Fig. 7, 11, 13

Response:This comment has been considered and the quality of the figures has been enhanced in the revised version of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved, although some minor revision of English and formatting is still needed before the final publication of the work.