Modelling of Propylene Polymerization in a Loop Reactor on the Titanium–Magnesium Catalyst Taking into Account the Transformation of Active Centers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I apologize for the late reply.

This manuscript described the mathematical modeling of propylene polymerization in a loop reactor using the heterogeneous titanium-magnesium catalyst. In general, the polymerization using the heterogeneous catalyst is complex and difficult to model. The author set up many equations taking account of various factors, including the transformation of active species. In particular, the author elucidated the effect of donor additives on polymerization behaviors such as molecular weight and stereoregularity. Although this paper will become better by the comparison of the simulation with experimental results, the molecular weight, molecular weight distribution, and tacticity were precisely calculated using the modeling. It is suitable for publication in ‘processes’. The following are some my comments.

 

1. To improve understating, please insert some chemical structures if possible/

 

2. The author should define some abbreviations, such as PEBC.

 

3. The author should modify the following word. “tact”–“tacticity”

 

4. Page 5, line 216. The word ‘Figure 2.19’ is wrong. The author should modify it.

 

4. Page 5, line 226. The word ‘Figure 1,2’ also might be wrong. The author should check and modify it.

Author Response

1. We add chemical structure. Please see page 5, line 224
2. We add abbreviations (page 1, line 16; .page 4, line 176; page 4, line 170)
3. We modify the word - “tact”–“tacticity” (page 3, line 98; line 109; page 10, line 296)
4. Page 10, line 306. The word ‘Figure 2.19’ is changed on "Figure 5".
5. Page 11, line 316. The word ‘Figure 1,2’ is changed on "Figure 1 and figure 2".

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Modelling of propylene polymerization in a loop reactor on the titanium-magnesium catalyst taking into account the transformation of active centers” proposes a mathematical model that allows to control of the PEBC synthesis process and allows making a quantitative connection between the technological parameters of the reactors. The paper shows interesting information. I recommend this document for publication after carrying out a minor review.

The authors should review the introduction. In this section, several paragraphs are not referenced. Relevant information is placed that is not referenced

Author Response

We rewrited the inroduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, this work is compatible with the scope of the journal of Processes. However, I do recommend not to publish in its present form because the manuscript is not well written.

Please consider some points below to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

1.   The abstract should be written in the standard format, with each subheading having at least one sentence: aim and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions.

2.   Please re-check some typos: (P. 2, L. 71; P. 3, L. 134-136; P. 9, L. 216), etc.

3.   There are much scientific research works regarding this topic. Please cite them as the background of the research. Then, the authors should state more strongly the objective of their work based on the research gap.

4.   Results and discussion parts need to be rewrite. The authors should provide more scientific explanation to support their results presented. The analysis and discussion of the results must be supported by more relevant references.

5.   Please add more quantitative results in the conclusion. Authors should conclude by stating the highlights of the study, benefits, and the applicability of their findings/results for further work and recommendations.

Author Response

1. We rewrited the abstract (See page 1, lines 13-25.
2. Typos have been corrected.
3. Please see section 2.
4. We added the information in the section 2 and 3.
5. We rewrited the conclusion (See the section 4).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

1. P.2 L.83: "In the works of Alshaiban A. et al [2-13], the kinetic scheme …" Please check the reference. The authors cite more than three references, all grouped together. Please bear in mind that it is acceptable to cite one to three references (merged together) to support a statement if necessary. However, over-citation normally does not provide readers with further information related to the statement, thus should be avoided. If there are several references which are important, please cite them separately and provide more information for each reference.

 2. All the figures presented must be discussed systematically and sequentially from Fig. 1 to 9. The authors discussed from Fig. 5, 7-9 (P.10; L.303). 

 3. The conclusion was too long. Please try to write a more concise conclusion.

Author Response

1.  We corrected, please see page 2, lines 83-105.
2. Please see page 10, lines 298-322. 
3. We corrected. Please see the conclusion.