Novel Process for Butyl Acetate Production via Membrane Reactor: A Comparative Study with the Conventional and Reactive Distillation Processes
, Abdullah E. Alqahtani, Rayan K. Al Darwish and Abdulaziz S. Bin Naqyah
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a very interesting work that compares the production process of butyl acetate using a membrane reactor, a reactive distillation column and a conventional process. Although the membrane reactor system is slightly less efficient than RD, it is very interesting since membranes that also have a catalytic character could be included.
Include in the literature review information on the membranes used in the separation, as well as possible membranes that could also function as a catalyst.
Explain in more detail how the calculation of CO2 emissions was made, indicate efficiencies considered.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to the comments are as follows:
It is a very interesting work that compares the production process of butyl acetate using a membrane reactor, a reactive distillation column and a conventional process. Although the membrane reactor system is slightly less efficient than RD, it is very interesting since membranes that also have a catalytic character could be included.
- “Include in the literature review information on the membranes used in the separation, as well as possible membranes that could also function as a catalyst.”
Response We appreciate very much the reviewer’s comments on the paper. We have added more review information about potential membranes to be used in the separation (page 1, line 43). We also have added more information on the membrane that was used in our study in Table 1 (page 5).
2. Explain in more detail how the calculation of CO2 emissions was made, indicate efficiencies considered.
Response Thank you for the comment. We have used Aspen-Plus Environmental Analyzer to determine the amount of CO2 emitted from the three distinctive processes. The Aspen software determines the amount of generated CO2 based on the fuel type. Natural gas was used for all processes as a source of energy. More explanation was added to the manuscript (please check page 17, line 365).
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well organized and informative. It is also technically and scientifically sound. I suggest to recommend it to publish in Processes journal after a major revision. My comments are:
1- Check if you have included enough details on statistics (number of replicates, statistical tests performed, presentation of average and standard deviation or error values, both in tables and graphs), and complete where applicable it if needed.
2- The language of the manuscript need to modified by English native expert.
3- The novelty of the current work should be more clearly addressed in introduction section
4- You used from different fonts in all the figures of the paper. Resolve the problem
5- The range of input variable was selected based on previous similar studies or pre-tests. It should be mentioned.
6- The main findings of the current study should be compared with similar study published before, and should be tabulated in a table form.
7- It is valuable to conduct the thermodynamic experiments.
8- The efficiency of the used process should be evaluated and compared with the existing available processes.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and efforts of the reviewer for the insightful comments. The valuable scientific comments have allowed us to improve the paper. This manuscript has been revised based on the comments given by the author, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:
The manuscript is well organized and informative. It is also technically and scientifically sound. I suggest to recommend it to publish in Processes journal after a major revision. My comments are
- “Check if you have included enough details on statistics (number of replicates, statistical tests performed, presentation of average and standard deviation or error values, both in tables and graphs), and complete where applicable it if needed.)
Response: The comment has been considered. We have added a table to compare the model results with the experimental data and calculate the relative deviations. (Please see page 6, Table 2). The coefficient of determination (R2) was calculated and added to Figure 4, which shows the variation of concentration results of the mathematical model vs. the experimental data. (Please check page 4, line 137 and page 5, Figure 4).
- “The language of the manuscript needs to be modified by English native expert.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed the paper and made the necessary changes.
- “The novelty of the current work should be more clearly addressed in the introduction section”.
Response: Thank you so much for your suggestion. The novelty of the current work has been mentioned in the introduction section (page 2, line 62).
- “You used from different fonts in all the figures of the paper. Resolve the problem.”
Response: The comment has been considered. We have resolved the problem in the revised manuscript.
- “The range of input variables was selected based on previous similar studies or pre-tests. It should be mentioned.”
Response- We appreciate your comment. We have included the input variables that were selected from the previous study. See (Table 1).
- “The main findings of the current study should be compared with similar study published before, and should be tabulated in a table form.”
Response: We highly appreciate your comment. The main findings of the current study have been reported and compared with the previous study in table form. See (Table 2)
- “It is valuable to conduct the thermodynamic experiment.”
Response: We appreciate your suggestion. Although conducting a thermodynamic experiment seems viable, it is out of the scope of this research. In this study, we have used the existing thermodynamic model in Aspen Plus, which is NRTL (Please check page 2, line 73). However, the findings of the current study have been compared with the existing experimental results and a good agreement has been found.
- “The efficiency of the used process should be evaluated and compared with the existing available processes.”
Response: Thank you for your constructive comment. An energy efficiency analysis section was added to the manuscript to handle this point. (Please check section 7.1, page 16).
Reviewer 3 Report
(1) The word of "where" should be placed on the left without any "space" at the lines of 93, 96, 100, 107, 119, 212.
(2) There are no kinetic models being used in the MR processes.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to the comments are as follows:
(1) The word of "where" should be placed on the left without any "space" at the lines of 93, 96, 100, 107, 119, 212.
Response: The comment has been considered. We have resolved the problem in the revised manuscript.
(2) There are no kinetic models being used in the MR processes
Response: The kinetic model that was used for the MR process is mentioned on pages 2 and 3. Equations 2, 3, and 4 represent the kinetics of the used catalyst, which is the same catalyst that was used in the experimental work.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted for publication.
