Catalytic Pyrolysis of Hydrochar by Calcined Eggshells for Bioenergy Production: Improved Thermo-Kinetic Studies and Reduced Pollutant Emissions
and Zhengang Liu 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see detailed comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
A few grammatical errors should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The objective of the paper is to study the kinetics and the mechanism of hydrochar over calcined eggshells. In general, the paper is well planned and organized and has valuable results. However, some parts need to be improved, as described below. Because of this, the paper can be recommended after a major revision.
1. Line 84: please, remove the word “significantly”.
2. Line 109: which are the secondary reactions? Please, explain.
3. Line 118: please, replace “excellent” by “higher”.
4. Lines 119 and 120: in the discussion, coke formation should be considered.
5. Lines 123 and 124: why does the maximum weight imply that reaction ?
6. Figure 3 should be removed from the paper since neither morphology, nor any useful information can be obtained. We can only see secondary aggregates which cannot be correlated with the catalyst performance.
7. Lines 152 to 154: why the close values of Ea obtained by FWO and KAS methods are noteworthy? What does it mean? Are different values expected by the authors?
8. Lines 172 and 173: why does a lower A value indicate that the complex reaction become a simple semi-reaction and reduce the energy input?
9. Lines 177 and 178: please explain the sentence “These results further….. in the literature [25. 26]”. It is not understandable.
10. Lines 194 to 211: please, make a table correspondent to the values shown in Figure 6, which is small and difficult to read. It is very hard to follow the discussion without a table.
11. Lines 209 to 212: in the sentence “These peaks originated mainly from the decomposition of… or condensed to tar”, why these compounds were not produced in the pyrolysis process?
12. Figures 6 and 7: why did not the aromatics appear in mass spectra?
13. Figure 7 is not useful as shown. Please, identify the peaks, indicating the correspondent compounds.
14. Lines 245 and 246: please, include the mechanism that was elucidated by the study.
15. Which model is more suitable to describe the kinetics of reaction?
16. Lines 296 and 297: Please, remove the sentence “The kinetic study … mechanism” because this information was already given in the paper.
17. Line 350: it is supposed to be the conclusion. In this section, it is important to conclude about the reaction kinetics and the mechanism.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
