Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Ø  Graphical Abstract should be included in the manuscript to invite wider readership

Ø  Add the purity, CAS numbers and company details of materials and chemicals

Ø  Add the Tables for temperature pressure conditions. Also explain the details on methodology adopted

Ø  Add the values of results in abstract, conclusion.

Ø  Authors also can write about the impact of current work on the future research and industry

Ø  Highlight the problem statement of the current work in the abstract and conclusion

 

Ø  Check for grammatical errors and typos and improve the literature by considering latest paper https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186498

The authors need to improve the conclusion and need to revise the title as well

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript raises an area of ​​great interest, such as distillation columns. I have some observations that will improve it.

1. Introduction: Please complement the state-of-the-art about the distillation columns. What characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages do these columns have concerning some industrial processes?. Additionally, I suggest deleting Figure 1, it's very basic and doesn't really add anything to the manuscript.

2. Modeling… section should be modified. It must include the detailed methodology of the study, main premises, and calculation strategies. I suggest that a new graph indicates the relationship between the equations of the model and the calculation strategy. Reviewing this document (doi: 10.3390/en14175576) is shown as an example of how to develop the methodology in a manuscript.

3. Model test. I have some queries: (1) for the validation of the model is used experimental data or simulator results?, (2) What simulator is used?, (3) What is the PT conditions in the two cases presented?.

4. Model control. Check if there are recent studies based on artificial intelligence (AI). Why is the comparison only done with the PID control scheme?, Are there other comparison alternatives?

Some specific observations:

- References should be updated and expanded, 17 references seem little for a research article.

- Please improve the Abstract and Conclusions considering all observations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Firstly, the authors should clarify what is the novelty of this paper. What is really new?, What is the effective contribution when compared with other similar papers?.

 

When a new proposal is presented it is really important clearly specify under which conditions is a good approximation but even more important when we should not use strategy, and this is not clearly stated. In other words if I am not sure if the proposal is good or not to my system a basic 'caution' would suggest not use it.

How the authors selected the case study analyzed (Composition, flowrate, etc)?

Authors must establish the validity of the thermodynamic model used. Is this the most appropriate?. Justify in detail in the paper.

 

Authors need to explain how they select the magnitude of the disturbances in the closed loop response.

The conclusion seems too general and self-evident information. More deep discussion and insights for the process is expected from the readers.

Authors need to do more detailed analysis of the results generated to establish more robust and general conclusions.

As a conclusion, the paper is interesting and eventually publishable but I think that the authors should re-write it focusing more on the conditions of applicability and the conditions in which the strategy must not be used.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for revising the manuscript based on the suggestions provided in the first round.

Reviewer 3 Report

accept it