24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (4201)
>文献求助 (447)
>虫友互识 (361)
>导师招生 (357)
>考博 (195)
>博后之家 (176)
>硕博家园 (160)
>休闲灌水 (148)
>论文投稿 (129)
>基金申请 (92)
>考研 (69)
>招聘信息布告栏 (60)
>教师之家 (56)
>公派出国 (45)
>绿色求助(高悬赏) (43)
>找工作 (38)

返回列表

QSZWDSWWD

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 1.5
红花: 1
帖子: 4
在线: 2.2小时
虫号: 3704478
注册: 2015-03-02
专业: 凝聚态物性I:结构、力学和

[交流] 第一次投文章，此审稿意见有希望吗？该怎样回答问题？已有2人参与

Dear Prof. Dr. Li:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in Energy & Fuels. It has been examined by expert reviewers whose reviews are enclosed. The reviewers have expressed serious reservations about this work that I don’t believe could be addressed through a standard major revision. In light of the comments received, I am unable to accept the manuscript for publication in Energy & Fuels.

However, if further experimentation, analysis, and revisions allow you to address the referees concerns in full we would be happy to consider a new version submitted as a resubmission to this manuscript. Please upload a point by point response to all reviewer comments if you decide to resubmit.

With sincere regards,

------------------------------------

Reviewer Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Publish after major revisions.

Comments:
This manuscript describes blends of a bio-oil produced through hydrothermal liquefaction following a previously reported pretreatment step termed “chemical-biological” with aviation kerosene and aviation gasoline. The work is interesting, important in the highly active field of renewable aviation fuels, and warrants publication in Energy & Fuels, however it seems somewhat incomplete. The authors should address the points below prior to this work being published.
1. 。。。。。。。
2. 。。。。。。
3. 。。。。。
4. 。。。。。。
5. 。。。。。。。

Additional Questions:

Originality: Good

Technical Quality: Fair

Clarity of Presentation: Good

Importance to Field: Good

-------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Publish after major revisions.

Comments:
The main issue with this work is that the researchers take a highly acidic material and use it in aviation fuel. No airline manufacturer would let this near any of the materials used in an aircraft. What I suggest it that the researchers take the HTL oil and remove or esterify the acidic content, to give a neutral fuel that could potentially be compatible - if the researchers could do that, then do the fuel properties of this fuel (and maybe compare to the acidic oil) then I think it could be reviewed again and perhaps published.

In addition I am a little unclear on the explanations given for the fuel properties which appear to be contradictory. I think more experimentation is needed to show what is going on here.

For example -
Section 3.3.2 is very poorly argued. We need to see more experimentation here. What components have gone into the aviation kerosene? We need experimental proof, as it seems you have dissolved a highly oxygenated species into the jet fuel and got the energy density to increase!

Section 3.3.3 you need to explain why the freezing point went down, again, if you are putting in low molecular weight oxygenates – maybe I can see that, but large energy dense alkanes?! I should point out that palmitic acid has a melting point of 60 degC! So the results in this section really don’t correlate with what was observed in the previous section. More experiments are needed to explain what has happened here. Also the flash point is now below the standards allowed, so this fuel really cant be used at all. Please explain why this is the case

Further issues:

Introduction – Please check all references, some of the papers cited are not the ones discussed.

Experimental – not sure what AR means

Table 1 and 2, figure 1 can all go in supporting information
Conclusions – no, this approach can not be used for aviation fuels. The too low flash points and high acidity tell us that.

Additional Questions:

Originality: Fair

Technical Quality: Poor

Clarity of Presentation: Good

Importance to Field: Poor

--------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer: 3

Recommendation: Publish after minor revisions.

Comments:
Very good paper.Need to add statistical analysis of the results example to include standard deviation for reproducibility

Additional Questions:

Originality: Excellent

Technical Quality: Excellent

Clarity of Presentation: Excellent

Importance to Field: Excellent

回复此楼