Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Manuscript ID: catalysts 2903706

 

title.

Hydrocracking of a HDPE/VGO blend: Influence of catalyst to feed ratio on fuel yield and composition.

The work describes the results of working with HDPE-VGO bend to recycle plastic. Authors determined that the suitable ratio of the catalyst to feed ratio (C/F) was 0.07. Higher C/F values provoke high extent hydrocracking and lower not an adequate conversion. The effect of C/F was studied in the naphtha and LCO cuts. Also, the burning temperature of different carbonaceous deposit by TPOas a function of the afore mentioned C/F.

 

Recommendation: Accepted with minor changes.

 

 

Comments to the authors.

 

Major comments

According to the authors in L114 “The distribution of yields was more influenced by the addition of the HDPE”. Some results were shown, but no explanation about the issue was given.

L157-L177 ¿How the used zeolite properties related with the aromatics formation?

Bibliography.

Regarding references 29-30 the studies on coke formation on zeolites are not as recent as these references and the used refences are own.

 

Minor comments

(L =line)

L81. It better at the same time not in this way

L82. Naphtha was the main product with a yield of.

L83, I think entailed is misused, provoke?

L85-86 the yield was reduced... There is no comparison therefore you can use higher

In figure 1, the captions of the graphics are somewhat misplaced. The parentheses in (a) are too much closed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

teh comments are in the review report

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the annexed file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I greatly appreciate the authors' detailed response to my comments and the acceptance of some of these comments in the revised manuscript. I also appreciate open information about the industrial partner. However, I consider some of the authors' responses to be more courtesy than professional. Other responses initiate new questions, but I do not find their wording productive for further revision of the manuscript. I believe that as in my case, the authors are faced with similar comments from respected technologists at the Petronor Tarragona refinery. I agree to publish the manuscript in revised form.