Fisher–Tropsch Synthesis for Conversion of Methane into Liquid Hydrocarbons through Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) Process: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Methane 2022, 1 :Conversion of Methane into Liquid Hydrocarbons and Oxy-1 genates Through Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) Process: A review

F. T. Alsudani et al.

 The present manuscript intends to review the production of synthetic hydrocarbons through Fischer-Tropsch processes, using methane as a raw material. It resembles more to a chapter in a textbook, addressed to students and not to a review article for researchers. Most of its content is common knowledge and not a review of recent developments in the field. Furthermore, the text is like a patchwork of paragraphs, taken from published articles and pieced together. There are many different paragraphs with similar content. This is seen in several sections of the manuscript. This issue makes reading tiresome and uninteresting. Text must be rewritten.

 

 Care must be taken regarding spelling and syntax errors, missing words, etc. The use of long and complex sentences sometimes can be hard to follow and the reader may be confused and miss the point (e.g. lines 32-36, 96-101, 171-176, 341-345). Please, revise the text carefully.

 

 

The follow issues should be addressed before publication:

 1. Section 2 should not be indicated as “Fischer-Tropsch processes steps” as FT process is a step of GTL. The same applies for Fig. 1 (Over all process scheme Fischer –Tropsch). It would be more accurate to replace Fischer-Tropsch with GTL, i.e. “GTL processes steps”

 

 

2. line 109

 

In the text: “The ATR process reactions are as below [6, 19, 20]”.  Reactions must be given after this phrase or give the equations numbers, so as the reader should not have to search.

 

3. lines 122-134

Equations numbers do not match with the text. Please, correct.

 

4. lines 149-150

Mentioning that the СО: Н2 ratio is 1:1 in the case of the dry reforming of methane and a ratio of 1:3 in steam reforming is not totally accurate. It must be clarified that these are only the nominal ratios, predicted from stoichiometry. WGS reaction also takes place and alters these ratios.

 

5. lines 151-152

Stating that a ratio of 1:1 CO:H2 is needed for methanol production is not accurate. Methanol synthesis reaction stoichiometry demands a 1:2 CO:H2 ratio, whereas higher ratios are requested for the industrial process. Please, correct.

 

6. lines 167-171

Where does this alumina come from? It should be explained in the text.

 

7. lines 171-176

This sentence is ill written and undecipherable. Please, revise the text and clarify.

 

8. Section 2.1 is entitled “Synthesis Gas Production”. Consequently, in section 2.2, entitled “Alternative technologies” one would expect to read about other processes without the synthesis gas production step. This is not the case. It also refers to syngas production methods. So, there is no need to change section.

 

9. line 193

From the text: “…and thus burners are not required for carbon formation (see equations 1 to 4)”. Obviously, the authors meant something else.

 

10. lines 195-199

This is really very difficult to understand. Please, revise.

 

11. lines 179-180 and Table 1

According to the text, the sources of the data presented in Table 1 are references 32, 37, and 38. However, in Table it is mentioned that data come from references 39, 40 and 41. Please, correct.

 

12. lines 200-201

What is the ASU? Please, explain in the text.

 

13. lines 209-212

The authors mention that “Oxygen production by membrane separation technology has encountered several  critical problems throughout the past years, where improvements are still required in the  thermal, chemical and mechanical stability of the membrane, in addition to keeping high  electronic and ionic conductivities [42, 48, 49]”. Ref. 42 is an article published in 2001, Ref. 48 is published in 2011 and Ref. 49 in 2008. How will the reader be convinced that although this technology is worth developing, there is no progress and/or no more recent publications? By the way, references 42 and 48 are not correctly given (titles, authors).

 

14. lines 232-235

Suggesting that the application of installing microchannel reactors could be “a possible solution to the case of flaring the associated natural gas” does to seem very accurate. Even before the situation we are facing in 2022, flaring the oil associated natural gas does not seem a nowadays practice. Please use more recent articles to support the text.

 

15. Sections 3 should be  section 2.2. Section 3.2 should not be separated  from 3.1 as the content is the same. Please, consider this option.

 

16. Lines 334-336

It is stated that “when cobalt-based catalysts are used in the FT process, operating pressure plays an important role in the hydrocarbon chain growth while this growth is not affected by pressure when iron complexes are used [70]”. On the contrary, in Ref. 70 it is clear that “the iron catalyst is more productive at higher space velocities and operation pressures”. Please, clarify this contradiction.

 

17. lines 396-401

These are disadvantages of multi- tubular fixed-bed reactors and not advantages. Please, correct.

 

18. line 411

The statement that “high temperatures are necessary to attain great output” is not accurate as the reaction is exothermic and temperature must be controlled. Please, clarify in the text or correct the text.

 

19. lines 414-415

How can elevated pressures lead to greater percentage of less ecologically friendly GHG products?  Also, Table 5 does not include such indication. Please, correct.

 

20. Table 6

According to Table 6, these are the commercially utilized reactor types in GTL technology worldwide. However, data are taken from an article of 1999. There are no changes since then?

 

21. Fig. 4

Ref. 12 is a PhD thesis on the optimization of Fischer-Tropsch Plants. These reactors are not developed in the frame of this thesis but are taken from relevant literature. Ref 22 is irrelevant to FT reactors. Please, use original publications.

 

22. lines 477-478

The cetane number of LTFT diesel fraction cannot be 7. Please, correct.

 

23. Table 7 is irrelevant. Please, consider removing it.

 

24. Tables 8 and 9

More recent sources should be used. Furthermore, abbreviations such as SMDS should be explained in the text.

 

 

References

25. References must be written in the same way and the names of all authors must be mentioned, e.g. in Ref. 1 only the 1^st author is mentioned whereas in Ref. 2 all authors are given. Also, volume year and pages must be included. Please, correct accordingly.

 

26. line 62, Ref. [15] cannot precede ref [7]. Please, correct.

 

27. Ref. 61 is published in 2020 and not 2021. Please, correct.

 

28. Ref. 66. When was the Second International Energy 2030 Conference held? Please, correct the reference.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Methane 2022, 1: Conversion of Methane into Liquid Hydrocarbons and Oxy-1 genates Through Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) Process: A review

1. T. Alsudani et al.

 The present manuscript intends to review the production of synthetic hydrocarbons through Fischer-Tropsch processes, using methane as a raw material. It resembles more to a chapter in a textbook, addressed to students and not to a review article for researchers. Most of its content is common knowledge and not a review of recent developments in the field. Furthermore, the text is like a patchwork of paragraphs, taken from published articles and pieced together. There are many different paragraphs with similar content. This is seen in several sections of the manuscript. This issue makes reading tiresome and uninteresting. Text must be rewritten.

 Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 Care must be taken regarding spelling and syntax errors, missing words, etc. The use of long and complex sentences sometimes can be hard to follow, and the reader may be confused and miss the point (e.g. lines 32-36, 96-101, 171-176, 341-345). Please, revise the text carefully.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

The follow issues should be addressed before publication:

1. Section 2 should not be indicated as “Fischer-Tropsch processes steps” as FT process is a step of GTL. The same applies for Fig. 1 (Over all process scheme Fischer –Tropsch). It would be more accurate to replace Fischer-Tropsch with GTL, i.e. “GTL processes steps”

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

2. line 109

In the text: “The ATR process reactions are as below [6, 19, 20]”.  Reactions must be given after this phrase or give the equations numbers, so as the reader should not have to search.

 Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

3. lines 122-134

Equations numbers do not match with the text. Please, correct.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. lines 149-150

Mentioning that the СО: Н2 ratio is 1:1 in the case of the dry reforming of methane and a ratio of 1:3 in steam reforming is not totally accurate. It must be clarified that these are only the nominal ratios, predicted from stoichiometry. WGS reaction also takes place and alters these ratios.

 Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. lines 151-152

Stating that a ratio of 1:1 CO:H2 is needed for methanol production is not accurate. Methanol synthesis reaction stoichiometry demands a 1:2 CO:H2 ratio, whereas higher ratios are requested for the industrial process. Please, correct.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

6. lines 167-171

Where does this alumina come from? It should be explained in the text.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

7. lines 171-176

This sentence is ill written and undecipherable. Please, revise the text and clarify.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

8. Section 2.1 is entitled “Synthesis Gas Production”. Consequently, in section 2.2, entitled “Alternative technologies” one would expect to read about other processes without the synthesis gas production step. This is not the case. It also refers to syngas production methods. So, there is no need to change section.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

9. line 193

From the text: “…and thus burners are not required for carbon formation (see equations 1 to 4)”. Obviously, the authors meant something else.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

10. lines 195-199

This is really very difficult to understand. Please, revise.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

11. lines 179-180 and Table 1

According to the text, the sources of the data presented in Table 1 are references 32, 37, and 38. However, in Table it is mentioned that data come from references 39, 40 and 41. Please, correct.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

12. lines 200-201

What is the ASU? Please, explain in the text.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

13. lines 209-212

The authors mention that “Oxygen production by membrane separation technology has encountered several critical problems throughout the past years, where improvements are still required in the thermal, chemical and mechanical stability of the membrane, in addition to keeping high electronic and ionic conductivities [42, 48, 49]”. Ref. 42 is an article published in 2001, Ref. 48 is published in 2011 and Ref. 49 in 2008. How will the reader be convinced that although this technology is worth developing, there is no progress and/or no more recent publications? By the way, references 42 and 48 are not correctly given (titles, authors).

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

14. lines 232-235

Suggesting that the application of installing microchannel reactors could be “a possible solution to the case of flaring the associated natural gas” does to seem very accurate. Even before the situation we are facing in 2022, flaring the oil associated natural gas does not seem a nowadays practice. Please use more recent articles to support the text.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

15. Sections 3 should be section 2.2. Section 3.2 should not be separated from 3.1 as the content is the same. Please, consider this option.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

16. Lines 334-336

It is stated that “when cobalt-based catalysts are used in the FT process, operating pressure plays an important role in the hydrocarbon chain growth while this growth is not affected by pressure when iron complexes are used [70]”. On the contrary, in Ref. 70 it is clear that “the iron catalyst is more productive at higher space velocities and operation pressures”. Please, clarify this contradiction.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

17. lines 396-401

These are disadvantages of multi- tubular fixed-bed reactors and not advantages. Please, correct.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

 

18. line 411

The statement that “high temperatures are necessary to attain great output” is not accurate as the reaction is exothermic and temperature must be controlled. Please, clarify in the text or correct the text.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

19. lines 414-415

How can elevated pressures lead to greater percentage of less ecologically friendly GHG products?  Also, Table 5 does not include such indication. Please, correct.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

20. Table 6

According to Table 6, these are the commercially utilized reactor types in GTL technology worldwide. However, data are taken from an article of 1999. There are no changes since then?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

21. Fig. 4

Ref. 12 is a PhD thesis on the optimization of Fischer-Tropsch Plants. These reactors are not developed in the frame of this thesis but are taken from relevant literature. Ref 22 is irrelevant to FT reactors. Please, use original publications.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

22. lines 477-478

The cetane number of LTFT diesel fraction cannot be 7. Please, correct.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

23. Table 7 is irrelevant. Please, consider removing it.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

24. Tables 8 and 9

More recent sources should be used. Furthermore, abbreviations such as SMDS should be explained in the text.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

References

25. References must be written in the same way and the names of all authors must be mentioned, e.g. in Ref. 1 only the 1st author is mentioned whereas in Ref. 2 all authors are given. Also, volume year and pages must be included. Please, correct accordingly.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

26. line 62, Ref. [15] cannot precede ref [7]. Please, correct.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

27. Ref. 61 is published in 2020 and not 2021. Please, correct.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

28. Ref. 66. When was the Second International Energy 2030 Conference held? Please, correct the reference.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

 

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

 

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

 

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

 

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

 

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260).

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

A

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article should be changed to reflect its content. The submitted article is 90% related to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This should be reflected in the title.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according your comment.

2. The title of Part 2 and 3 should be changed. They almost completely repeat each other. Another option would be to include data from item 2 in item 3.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

3. The Conclusion should be reformulated, because they are generalized only the data about Fischer-Tropsch reactors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

4. P. 11, line 396: «Advantages of this…». Perhaps the disadvantages, but not advantages of the reactor are listed by authors?

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

5. Authors need to check the text of the article. There are a lot of typos in the article:

 - subscripts (for example, p.2 line 64, p.5 line 152, p. 5 line 174, p. 6 line 255, p. 10 line 345 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- lowercase letter after dot, or vice versa (for example, p. 13 line 461, p. 15 line 515 etc.)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

nswer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

- repeats (for example, p. 8 line 259-260)

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.       The review is based on a significant number of literary sources, most of which are from the last ten years. The language style, however, is very bad and in most places - difficult to understand. Some of the sentences are long and it is difficult to understand their meaning. Example: “A lower CO:H2 ratio of about 1:2 can be achieved by Catalytic oxidation, where nickel based catalysts are used to catalyze the reaction at temperatures lower than those in the case of a catalyst free POX process, in this case reaction (1) and (4) will be carried out simultaneously in addition to reaction (2) as a result of using Ni based catalyst in the system thus the reaction mixture will be close to equilibrium at high methane conversion[28].” According my opinion the English should be improved throughout the article.

I have other two questions:

2.       What dos is mean POX? Is this CO2 reforming (dry methane reforming) .  If you mean dry reforming of methane, it is exothermic, not endothermic.-row 134-135

3.       Pleas clarify what does it mean 52% 26.

 

Author Response

 

Reviewer 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The review is based on a significant number of literary sources, most of which are from the last ten years. The language style, however, is very bad and in most places - difficult to understand. Some of the sentences are long and it is difficult to understand their meaning. Example: “A lower CO:H2 ratio of about 1:2 can be achieved by Catalytic oxidation, where nickel based catalysts are used to catalyze the reaction at temperatures lower than those in the case of a catalyst free POX process, in this case reaction (1) and (4) will be carried out simultaneously in addition to reaction (2) as a result of using Ni based catalyst in the system thus the reaction mixture will be close to equilibrium at high methane conversion[28].” According my opinion the English should be improved throughout the article.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

I have other two questions:

 

2. What dos is mean POX? Is this CO2 reforming (dry methane reforming) . If you mean dry reforming of methane, it is exothermic, not endothermic.-row 134-135

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

3. Pleas clarify what does it mean 52% 26.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The review is based on a significant number of literary sources, most of which are from the last ten years. The language style, however, is very bad and in most places - difficult to understand. Some of the sentences are long and it is difficult to understand their meaning. Example: “A lower CO:H2 ratio of about 1:2 can be achieved by Catalytic oxidation, where nickel based catalysts are used to catalyze the reaction at temperatures lower than those in the case of a catalyst free POX process, in this case reaction (1) and (4) will be carried out simultaneously in addition to reaction (2) as a result of using Ni based catalyst in the system thus the reaction mixture will be close to equilibrium at high methane conversion[28].” According my opinion the English should be improved throughout the article.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

I have other two questions:

 

2. What dos is mean POX? Is this CO2 reforming (dry methane reforming) . If you mean dry reforming of methane, it is exothermic, not endothermic.-row 134-135

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

3. Pleas clarify what does it mean 52% 26.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The review is based on a significant number of literary sources, most of which are from the last ten years. The language style, however, is very bad and in most places - difficult to understand. Some of the sentences are long and it is difficult to understand their meaning. Example: “A lower CO:H2 ratio of about 1:2 can be achieved by Catalytic oxidation, where nickel based catalysts are used to catalyze the reaction at temperatures lower than those in the case of a catalyst free POX process, in this case reaction (1) and (4) will be carried out simultaneously in addition to reaction (2) as a result of using Ni based catalyst in the system thus the reaction mixture will be close to equilibrium at high methane conversion[28].” According my opinion the English should be improved throughout the article.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

I have other two questions:

 

2. What dos is mean POX? Is this CO2 reforming (dry methane reforming) . If you mean dry reforming of methane, it is exothermic, not endothermic.-row 134-135

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

3. Pleas clarify what does it mean 52% 26.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

Reviewer 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The review is based on a significant number of literary sources, most of which are from the last ten years. The language style, however, is very bad and in most places - difficult to understand. Some of the sentences are long and it is difficult to understand their meaning. Example: “A lower CO:H2 ratio of about 1:2 can be achieved by Catalytic oxidation, where nickel based catalysts are used to catalyze the reaction at temperatures lower than those in the case of a catalyst free POX process, in this case reaction (1) and (4) will be carried out simultaneously in addition to reaction (2) as a result of using Ni based catalyst in the system thus the reaction mixture will be close to equilibrium at high methane conversion[28].” According my opinion the English should be improved throughout the article.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

I have other two questions:

 

2. What dos is mean POX? Is this CO2 reforming (dry methane reforming) . If you mean dry reforming of methane, it is exothermic, not endothermic.-row 134-135

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

3. Pleas clarify what does it mean 52% 26.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

F. T. Alsudani et al.

 Methane 2022, 1 :Conversion of Methane into Liquid Hydrocarbons and Oxy-1 genates Through Gas-To-Liquids (GTL) Process: A review

 

The authors have responded to most of the suggestions and have revised the text accordingly. However, there are still weaknesses, as pointed out in the 1^st version of the article; i.e. long sentences, syntax, spelling and typo errors.  Some examples:

lines 59-66

Semicolon is used instead of a comma. The first sentence is too long. Last sentence is not finished. In addition, it is not indicated that theses pieces of information regard fuel for diesel engines. Furthermore, NOx are not components of the fuel but these are produced during combustion.

 

lines 67

One of the main advantageous of the GTL technology is …

 

lines 70-71

“… processes comes with a carbon conversion efficiency of about 52% as compared to biomass to liquid (43%28) and coal to liquid (28%–34%27).”  What do the numbers 28 and 27 stand for?

 

Figure 1

product grad-up? Please, correct.

 

lines 193-199

 

The text still needs improvement.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that after the changes made, the article can be accepted.

Author Response

Response to the Editors and Reviewers

I would like to express my deep thanks to you for your respectful comments which will make the paper more suitable for consideration for publishing in your respectable Journal. All your comments were achieved completely. The revision of my manuscript was achieved and highlighted, the changes made in the manuscript as yellow-colored text, and the following items are brief explanations or answers to your comments.

(I) Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the
manuscript.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.
(II) Any revisions to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track
Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that any changes can
be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

(III) Please provide a cover letter to explain, point by point, the details
of the revisions to the manuscript and your responses to the referees’
comments.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

(IV) If you found it impossible to address certain comments in the review
reports, please include an explanation in your appeal.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

(V) The revised version will be sent to the editors and reviewers.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The correction was achieved according to your comment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx