Next Article in Journal
Low-Carbon Collaboration in the Supply Chain under Digital Transformation: An Evolutionary Game-Theoretic Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Recent Advances in the Bioconversion of Waste Straw Biomass with Steam Explosion Technique: A Comprehensive Review
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparison of Four Density-Based Semi-Empirical Models for the Solubility of Azo Disperse Dyes in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide

Processes 2022, 10(10), 1960; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10101960
by Jun Yan 1,*, Shuang Du 1, Hui Du 1, Huan Zhang 1, Andong Jiao 1, Hong Li 1, Bing Du 1, Dawei Gao 2 and Kaihua Wang 3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Processes 2022, 10(10), 1960; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10101960
Submission received: 3 September 2022 / Revised: 19 September 2022 / Accepted: 23 September 2022 / Published: 28 September 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comparison of four density-based semi-empirical models for the solubility of azo disperse dyes in supercritical carbon dioxide

Supercritical carbon dioxide looks like an interesting research pathway to follow, and the authors have contributed a reasonable effort to gather the scientific data. However, there are a few major suggestions that I would like to emphasize.

1) Authors should consider describing more about the novelty of the current study over the previous publications. (include a description in the introduction)

2) I suggest the authors include the physical and chemical characterization of the supercritical carbon dioxide and the importance of this by emphasizing a few practical applications.

3) Describe in the introduction the importance of solubilization of azo disperse dyes in supercritical carbon dioxide over the water solubilized dyes.

4) Figures need to be more sharpened to make them more visible.

 

5) Because this is a research paper, I would suggest that the authors should not compare their data with the previous publications. This damages the novelty of the current study. Try to be very brief in this comparison and emphasize your data and its importance more than the previously published data. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is recommended for publication . As the manuscript has noval  formulation and new  ways for researchers

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your endorsement of our manuscript and wish you all the best.

                                         Sincerely

                                         Yan Jun

                                         September 18, 2022

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have taken reasonable efforts to work on the reviewers' comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Thus, I recommend accepting the manuscript at this stage. Wish you all the very best for your future. 

Back to TopTop