Modeling of Some Operating Parameters Required for the Development of Fixed Bed Small Scale Pyrolysis Plant

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Optimization and modeling of pyrolysis process is an important scientific field that that still requires significant updates.

Reviewed manuscript its well written and interesting, unfortunately I encounter some minor errors. Nevertheless manuscript

after revision should be considered for acceptation.

Minor revision

I would recommend shortening description of reactors in the introduction section. 

Materials and methods section should include more information about TGA and DSC analysis, for example what equipment

was used. Materials properties used in experiment should also be described properly in materials and methods segment.

Authors should avoid marking curves with letters in white box, for example figures 2 and 4. Transparent background can be

used.

In materials and methods  subsection "Fix bedding system planning" should be mark as 2.1 not 3.1.

In Results section below Table 1, authors are stating "We recorded an average sample, but the results were not useable to draw

viable conclusions". Why the authors used Table 1 in the manuscript if the results are not shown.

Statistical analysis should be included to validate achieved results regarding reactor performance.

There is a large discrepancy in Figures resolution for example Figure 8 and 11. It should be corrected.

Conclusion section should be more specified regarding achieved goals.

Author Response

Dear Rewiever1,

Thank you very much for the useful information and suggestions.

Most of the proposals were processed and used during correction.

Minor revision

I would recommend shortening description of reactors in the introduction section. 

The presentation of the different reactors was not the purpose of the article. At the end of the introductory section, we present

the new trends in pyrolysis research that have been formulated in a similar target system as the concept we have set up. In this

communication paper we would like to show how the relationship between gas production and the structure of matter is during

pyrolysis. Several materials were tested at different temperatures. We have chosen one of these (G50-hardwood-600 Celsius),

which is presented in this article.

Materials and methods section should include more information about TGA and DSC analysis, for example what

equipment was used. Materials properties used in experiment should also be described properly in materials and

methods segment.

Thank you very much for your comment. Technical information related to different measuring devices is given in the relevant

sections.

Authors should avoid marking curves with letters in white box, for example figures 2 and 4. Transparent background

can be used.

We put the captions in the white box so that the background doesn't interfere with the numbers. In our opinion, the number is

better seen in the figure.

In materials and methods  subsection "Fix bedding system planning" should be mark as 2.1 not 3.1.

We changed, we corrected the chapter title!

In Results section below Table 1, authors are stating "We recorded an average sample, but the results were not useable

to draw viable conclusions". Why the authors used Table 1 in the manuscript if the results are not shown.

We were much dilemmas about the usefulness of the table when compiling the article, but we thought it necessary to review the

parameters.We have now deleted the table, thank you for your confirmation.

 Statistical analysis should be included to validate achieved results regarding reactor performance.

Reactor performance validation was performed according to international standards. The related statistics are not presented due

to the nature of the article (communication letter).

There is a large discrepancy in Figures resolution for example Figure 8 and 11. It should be corrected.

We've improved the resolution of the graphics, and hopefully every detail in the version we handle is now visible.

Conclusion section should be more specified regarding achieved goals. 

After the conclusion chapter, we put in a limitation chapter to indicate the range of validity of the mathematical function. The extension

of the conclusions was considered important in order to better understand the usability of the results. After each statement we made

explanatory additions.

Thank you very much for the useful information and advice once again.

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

To present study Authors put a lot of work into this work. Unfortunately in my opinion authors too often confuse concepts of torrefaction,

pyrolysis and gasification process. The manuscript is too chaotic written and is unclear to read.  The thermal conversion process caring

out by authors is not described in detail. Based on information in this manuscript I would not be able to tell or classified with which

thermal conversion process (torrefaction, pyrolysis or gasification) we're dealing. I can't recommend this manuscript to publication.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer2,

Thank you for your comment, it was very useful to rethink again our main aims with the paper.

To present study Authors put a lot of work into this work. Unfortunately in my opinion authors too often confuse concepts of

torrefaction, pyrolysis and gasification process. The manuscript is too chaotic written and is unclear to read.  The thermal

conversion process caring out by authors is not described in detail. Based on information in this manuscript I would not be

able to tell or classified with which thermal conversion process (torrefaction, pyrolysis or gasification) we're dealing. I can't

recommend this manuscript to publication. 

The purpose of this scientific publication is to present a scientific result through short communication. We have found an appropriate

mathematical model (R2 = 0.8758) to describe the relationship between gas production and material structure for a given period. In

this article, we did not want to give details of the specifics of pyrolysis equipment and we did not want to detail some areas of pyrolysis.

We do not want to focus on these details, but we have also described these aspects briefly, but not well thought out. The correction took

into account your suggestions and clarified the relevant details. Thank you very much for your helpful comments. We have deleted several

details that were not directly related to the purpose of the paper. We changed the title of the article and clarified the purpose of the paper also.

According to the suggestions, the entire article was restructured and modified.

Thank you very much for the constructive suggestions.

Best regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

The paper deals with an interesting topic. Experimental campaign is correct. The presentation and the language are very bad. Very very bad.

So the paper needs a huge work for improving it otherwise it cannot be approved.

Specific comments

- please contact a mother tongue scientific editor and correct deeply the language, otherwise the paper cannot be published;

- line 33: change the sentence into "Producing heat energy from biomass has a good energy efficiency";

- line 49: change the sentence into "The main products are pyrolysis vapors which can be divided into two fractions: uncondensable gases

(pyrogas) and condensable gases (biooils)"; I would prefer using pyrogas instead of generator gas thoughout the paper

- line 80, please correct (CO2 és H2O), it is not clear;

- line 110, each equation has to be numbered (see also lines 170, 339, 341, 347 etc.)

- at the end of the introduction you should clear what ae the new trends in research, see for example co-pyrolysis, charcoal gasification:

Pietro Bartocci, Gianni Bidini, Francesco Asdrubali, Carlo Beatrice, Francesco Frusteri, Francesco Fantozzi, Batch pyrolysis of pellet made

of biomass and crude glycerol: Mass and energy balances, Renewable Energy, 124, 2018, 172-179

P. Bartocci, M. Zampilli, G. Bidini, F. Fantozzi, Hydrogen-rich gas production through steam gasification of charcoal pellet, Applied Thermal Engineering, 132, 2018, 817-823

- the in the final part of the introduction you have to state why this paper is new and what is the aim of this paper and what is the problem

you are addressing;

- in the material and methods section you have to explain: which instrument did you use for TGA (producer and model) and also for the

pyrolysis (you have to define the Producer and Name of the thermocopuples, the gas analysis apparatus, the producer and name of the

electrical heaters, and of the apparatus used to measure gas flow - if any); The section has to be completely rewritten in a more clear way;

- paragraph 3.1 name should be "Fixed bed system design"

- figure 4 reports many curves, you have to state clearly in the figure captions to what the curve refer, i.e. the meaning of A, B, p ,c, D, g

- all the figures should have clear description of x axis and y axis with the Quantity name and the unit of measure;

- lines 249-253 should be reported in the figure caption, because they describe the meaning of the star;

- figure 5 and figure 6, it is not clear the meaning of the lines;

- line 332-337 describe the parameters without using a list but in a paragraph;

- conclusions should not be writte in bulleted list

Author Response

Dear Reviewer3,

Thank you very much for the general and specific suggestions for the article.

Answers to General comments

The presentation and the language are very bad. Very very bad. So the paper needs a huge work for improving it otherwise

it cannot be approved.

As our translator did double-checks thrice due to us asking him to do so, and even sent the finished manuscript to other English

teachers also. Please check the result of this additional work. We would also be thankful for suggestions related to terminology, as the

translator and the persons that checked the manuscript also found those satisfactory. Please forward us any other problems unrelated

to the above mentioned as well, and we'll see if we can fix them.

Answers to Specific comments

- please contact a mother tongue scientific editor and correct deeply the language, otherwise the paper cannot be published;

A javított cikket elküldtük egy angol anyanyelvű kutatónak, aki az általa szükséges javításokat elvégezte.

- line 33: change the sentence into "Producing heat energy from biomass has a good energy efficiency";

The indicated sentence was replaced.

- line 49: change the sentence into "The main products are pyrolysis vapors which can be divided into two fractions:

uncondensable gases (pyrogas) and condensable gases (biooils)"; I would prefer using pyrogas instead of generator gas

thoughout the paper

The sentence was corrected and the definitions changed.

- line 80, please correct (CO2 és H2O), it is not clear;

The indicated sentence was corrected.

- line 110, each equation has to be numbered (see also lines 170, 339, 341, 347 etc.)

The indicated problem was corrected.

- at the end of the introduction you should clear what ae the new trends in research, see for example co-pyrolysis, charcoal

gasification:

Pietro Bartocci, Gianni Bidini, Francesco Asdrubali, Carlo Beatrice, Francesco Frusteri, Francesco Fantozzi, Batch pyrolysis

of pellet made of biomass and crude glycerol: Mass and energy balances, Renewable Energy, 124, 2018, 172-179

P. Bartocci, M. Zampilli, G. Bidini, F. Fantozzi, Hydrogen-rich gas production through steam gasification of charcoal pellet,

Applied Thermal Engineering, 132, 2018, 817-823

The proposed corretions have been included in the introduction chapter, the proposed publications have been used for explanations.

- the in the final part of the introduction you have to state why this paper is new and what is the aim of this paper and what is

the problem you are addressing;

At the end of the introductory chapter we have described what the novelty of the article is. „Our experiments have also demonstrated the

importance of the material structure in the pyrolysis process in the small fix-bed pyrolysis units. We can find different gasification periods

of different material structures. In the case of hardwood biomass, we were looking for a functional relationship to describe the process.”

- in the material and methods section you have to explain: which instrument did you use for TGA (producer and model) and

also for the pyrolysis (you have to define the Producer and Name of the thermocopuples, the gas analysis apparatus, the

producer and name of the electrical heaters, and of the apparatus used to measure gas flow - if any); The section has to be

completely rewritten in a more clear way;

The article is in the form of a "short communcation", so all the details related to the research are interpreted in a later summary article.

In this article, we will try to clarify to the reader the details related to some operating parameters of fixed bad units in the methodological

part.

- paragraph 3.1 name should be  "Fixed bed system design"

Has been modified to the proposed version.

- figure 4 reports many curves, you have to state clearly in the figure captions to what the curve refer, i.e. the meaning of A, B, p ,c, D, g

The explanation of the title of the figure has been changed as follows: (Signs: m – mass intake, g - mass change (g/s), A,-B,-C,-D -….)

- all the figures should have clear description of x axis and y axis with the Quantity name and the unit of measure;

We've made the possible fixes.

- lines 249-253 should be reported in the figure caption, because they describe the meaning of the star;

We've modified the relevant details.

- figure 5 and figure 6, it is not clear the meaning of the lines;

We've modified the relevant details.

- line 332-337 describe the parameters without using a list but in a paragraph;

We've modified the relevant details.  

- conclusions should not be writte in bulleted list.

We've modified the relevant details.

Thank you very much for the suggestions. They provided very useful information for article development.

Best regards,

Authors

Round  2

Reviewer 2 Report

A manuscript can be accepted to publication in presentform 

Reviewer 3 Report

All the required changes have been performed. Paper can be accepted.