Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title of the manuscript:

 

Kinetic modeling of cornstalk cellulose hydrolysis in super-critical water: A comparative study of the effects of temperature and residence time on derivative production

Manuscript Number: processes-2641824

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Editor:

Recommendation:

Comments:

In my view point, the current manuscript is a good piece of work which is kinetic modeling that can contribute to a rational understanding of cellulose hydrolysis for better, controllable production of cellulose-de-rived biofuels and other value-added chemicals. I believe that this manuscript is acceptable with few changes mentioned in the comments section. Additionally, regress English language editing is required. Below I have done some comments (C), questions (Q) or suggestions (S) to improve the manuscript.

 

1.     Page 1, Line 14: (Q) Abstract. How close were these predicted values with experimental values or actual values?  Can author write it in percentage or even use any statistical tool to identify that these values were significant or not?

2.     Based on your Manuscript (Q) how many factors at a time this model can predict?

3.     Based on your Manuscript (Q) can we use the studied model for hemicellulose derivatives?

4.     Based on your Manuscript (Q) can we use this model for other pretreatments?

5.     Page 1, Line 20: (S) Keywords. Rewrite the keywords in alphabetic order

6.     Page 4, Line 148: (C) Correct the spelling of model.

7.     Page 5, Line 198: (S) Figure1: Would it be possible, if you could add some more related structures in this pathway? Such as Levoglucose, Sorbitol,  and from HMF we can produce formic acid and LA.

8.     Page 5, Line 198: (S) Figure1: Keep the figure in one font style.  

9.     Page 16, Line 536-538: In conclusion part (Q): author has mentioned that they kept three factors constant I.e. residence time, temperature and pressure?  Why

10.  (S) A table should be formed that shows the difference between actual values and predicted values given by the model and if possible those values can be studied statistically.

(11. (S) Most of the References are old ( not with in the previous 5 years) please add few new studies to justify your model. 

 

Author Response

See Attached File

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The introduction section is too long. It is necessary to shorten it.

2. The materials and method section is missing. The statement of the problem and solution section covers some parts of the methods; thus, it needs to be separated.

3. It is necessary to state the novelty of this research clearly.

4. How about the selectivity of the products?

5. It is necessary to explain how the author validates its proposed kinetic model with the experimental results.

6. Other parameters such as heating rate, pressure, etc., are also necessary to evaluate.

7. Figures 2-8 need to be replotted more professionally, since there is an overlap of words in the y-axis.

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This work is devoted to the calculation of the kinetics of cellulose hydrolysis. The authors have done a good voluminous work on this topic. The relevance of this work is due to the search for optimal ways to depolymerize polysaccharides into valuable chemical products. The descript of the kinetic processes occurring in this case allows us to understand the effectiveness and, therefore, their further use. There are some points for improvement:

1. Currently, there are many different models for calculating the kinetic patterns occurring during the hydrolysis of cellulose. The authors must justify why they chose this particular model.

2. It is advisable to expand the Abstract.

3. The introduction can be slightly shortened.

4. Basics. The section of kinetics implies such a concept as the “activation energy” of the process. In this work, it is desirable to provide activation energies for this process.

5. In addition, it is advisable to compare the basic data in more detail with data from literature sources.

6. Please cite: doi.org/10.1007/s00226-022-01363-4.

Author Response

See Attached File 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

accept as it is

Reviewer 3 Report

accepted