Review Reports
by
- Yuri Konstantinovich Tovbin
Reviewer 1: Muhammad Syafiq Hazwan Ruslan Reviewer 2: Jude Okolie Reviewer 3: Guangzhong Xie
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The manuscript is very hard to read.
2. Equation is not properly label
3. Summary of symbol used should be included.
4. The focus of the paper is very broad and hard to maintain an interest in reading a non specific title
The quality of writing need to be improved significantly. Use an easy to understand term and style of writing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The study presents a molecular investigation of the kinetics of supercritical processes based on the second law of thermodynamics. Although the concept is interesting and presents new insights on supercritical processes there are several grammatical errors making it difficult to understand.
The entire abstract is not clear and does not have any quantitative data. The entire abstract should be rewritten. Also, the introduction lacks direction in terms of similar studies, study novelty and aims of the research. Some minor comments are listed below:
There are several SCF with varying phase diagrams and distinct physicochemical properties, this should be clearly outlined in the introduction.
In line 189, what are some of the stages?
State the second law of thermodynamics
figure 1 is not clear
Needs significant improvement
List of symbols should be stated
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors calculate the compressibility, viscosity and thermal conductivity of pure substances and the universal dependence of compressibility, self- and inter-diffusion, and viscosity in the corresponding laws of state for binary mixtures. The effects of density and temperature on the rate of the basic phase under supercritical conditions are shown for the effective activation energy of the reaction, the diffusion and sharing coefficients, and the equilibrium constants of adsorption. Differences between models with effective parameters are described, as well as prospects for developing them by allowing for size differences and contributions from the vibrational motion of the components. However, some issues need to be addressed before proceeding further.
1. The two figures in Figure 1 are not aligned.
2. In this paper, some figures are in black and white and some in color, which makes the whole look untidy.
3. The border lines of the figure are inconsistent in thickness.
4. The right panel of Figure 6 does not indicate the temperature represented by each line.
5. What is the reason for the deviation of the experimental value from the theoretical value in Figure 6?
6. There exist some diagrams without top and right borders, please pay attention to the borders of the uniform diagrams.
7. It is not clear which figure (a)(b)(c) of Figure 11 is respectively.
8. It is not clear which figure (a)(b) of Figure 12 is respectively.
9. The lines in Figure 15 are rather blurred.
10. Please unify the position of the picture scale lines, in this paper, some face inward and some face outward.
11. The text mentions “extreme properties of entropy”, which should be listed several properties about entropy.
12. Formula (4) seems to have suddenly appeared without prior explanation. Please elaborate on the source of formula (4) in detail.
13. “The nonmonotonic behavior of the desorption rate contradicts the physics of the process, especially in view of the fact that, at short distances, chemisorbed species repel each other” is mentioned. Please provide a detailed description of the physics of the process and the reasons for the contradiction between the desorption rate and the physics of the process.
14. Why does this model of interaction between elongated molecules allow for the non-sphericity of the solid core of a molecule and the dependence of the energy of contact interaction for its different orientations in page 26 of this article?
15. The framework of the full text diagram (whether it is fully enclosed or semi enclosed) should be unified; The position of the horizontal and vertical coordinates should be unified. The writing format of CO2 should be standardized.
16. The format of references should be unified. For example, supplement the DOI number of corresponding references and unify the writing format of the journal.
17. Some relative papers may enrich the concepts and background of this work as references: Sens. Actuators B: Chem, 2022, 370, 132441.
English writing can be improved. Some grammar errors should be addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is written well and after minor cosmetic and typesetting correction is ready for publication. The commented document is provided for the author to refer.
1. line 540: 3.6
2. line 572: Image is not clear
3. line 993: Image is not clear
4. line 1005: axis is not properly labelled
5. Line 1038: Which data set is used for the testing
6. Line 1068: Line is not clear, suggest to redraw
7.What is the error percentage for study conducted in 7.1 and 7.2
8. Conclusion: It should be be providing any additional point/argument
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
All concerns have been addressed
Author Response
Review 2 didn't make any new comments on the article, so I didn't send a letter to the second reviewer.