Characterization of Biomethanol–Biodiesel–Diesel Blends as Alternative Fuel for Marine Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find comments in the attached pdf "Comments for authors".
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1,
Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise and improve our paper. The suggestions offered by you have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your comment on revising the manuscript. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. We thank you for your continued interest in our research.
Sincerely,
Tatjana Paulauskiene
Senior Researcher
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review comments:
The reviewed opinion is that the article is suitable for publication on Journal of Marina Science and Engineering.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the time you put in reviewing our paper and look forward to meeting your expectations.
Sincerely,
Tatjana Paulauskiene
Senior Researcher
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General remarks
The manuscript submitted for review concerns the study of physicochemical parameters of fuels composed of ternary blends of diesel, biodiesel and methanol, containing additives in the form of 2-EHN and dodecanol. Undoubtedly, the data presented in the manuscript are valuable and may interest researchers dealing with issues related to the use of alternative fuels in diesel engines employed for maritime transport. However, currently, the manuscript lacks the structure of an article and somewhat takes the form of a technical report based on laboratory tests. In particular, the introduction only gives the commonly known advantages resulting from the addition of biodiesel and methanol to diesel fuel, and there is no reference to similar studies conducted by other researchers. There is also no justification for the choice of tested fuel blends, and the reasoning for using the particular additives of 2-EHN and dodecanol is not explained. The authors also do not indicate whether any of the tested blends, or something similar, is currently successfully used in diesel engines employed for marine transport. Unfortunately, the discussion part is too laconic, and in general, the authors have limited themselves to describing what can be seen on the graphs presented. The reader will only learn that the value of a parameter has increased or decreased, and possibly whether a given value is within the limits specified by the standard. In this respect, there is no deeper cause-and-effect analysis and no explanation as to what effect the recorded values of the parameters of the blends may have on the functioning of the diesel engine. To sum up, the article requires important additions and modifications.
Detailed remarks
Issue 1
As the work contains abbreviations, symbols and acronyms, I suggest including a nomenclature section in the article.
Issue 2
Table 1 should indicate whether the higher or lower calorific value is specified.
Issue 3
Table 1:
Instead of:
m2/s
It should be:
mm2/s
Issue 4
The results of the uncertainty of measurement calculation for the measured parameters should be given in Table 1.
Issue 5
Fig. 5:
Instead of:
B6,8
It should be:
B6.8
Issue 6
The authors have not provided data on the type of biodiesel used and the method used to determine its volumetric fraction in the blends.
Issue 7
Instead of presenting the uncertainty of measurement in the form of error bars, I suggest including a table with the values of measurement uncertainties for individual measured parameters. The authors should also include information on how these uncertainties were calculated and how many repetitions of the measurements were made.
Issue 8
An explanation should be given regarding the basis on which the volumetric fractions of additives (2-EHN and dodecanol) were selected for the analysed blends, and what influence this had on the measurement results. Justification should also be given regarding the basis on which the mutual fractions of diesel, biodiesel and methanol were selected.
Issue 9
An explanation should be given regarding the utilitarian significance of the application of the multivariate analysis results. Please explain on what basis the parameters of this analysis were selected.
Issue 10
Conclusions are very short and laconic. I assume that after completing the cause–effect analysis in the discussion part, there will be a basis on which to complete the conclusions.
Issue 11
According to ASTM D976-06(16), the calculated cetane index formula is particularly applicable to straight-run fuels, catalytically cracked stocks, and blends of the two. How is the percentage of methanol, 2-EHN and dodecanol in the blend included in the calculation of the cetane index? The article should include detailed information on how the authors approached this issue.
Issue 12
Some standards (e.g., ASTM D86-96, EN 3015:1992) have updates. Why did the authors carry out tests according to older versions of these standards?
Issue 13
Table 1:
Please specify at what temperature the kinematic viscosity was determined.
Issue 14
Table 1:
Referring to ISO 8217, it is necessary to clarify for which fuel category the permissible values for each parameter are given.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3,
Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise and improve our paper. The suggestions offered by you have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your comment on revising the manuscript. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. We thank you for your continued interest in our research.
Sincerely,
Tatjana Paulauskiene
Senior Researcher
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find attached the review of the revised version of the manuscript.
The manuscript has been improved. Unfortunately, part of the blends used in the multivariate analysis are still blends that have not been introduced in the manuscript. This needs to be addressed and corrected.
Also, it is unclear how many measurements have been made per blend.
Additional information in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We wish to express our appreciation to you for the insightful comments, which have helped us significantly to improve our manuscript. According to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised our manuscript and its final version is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Tatjana Paulauskiene
Senior Researcher
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors provided extensive answers to the questions contained in the previous review. They also introduced a number of modifications and additions to the manuscript. In most cases, the authors' answers should be considered sufficient.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer#3,
We would like to thank you for careful and thorough reading of our manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of the manuscript.
We thank you for the time you put in reviewing our paper and look forward to meeting your expectations.
Sincerely,
Tatjana Paulauskiene
Senior Researcher
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
