| 查看: 2049 | 回复: 5 | |||
[交流]
求教IECR审稿意见问题已有3人参与
|
|
各位虫友，鄙人想请教一个关于IECR审稿意见的问题。 The reviews for your manuscript are included below. The reviewers have raised points that require significant consideration and revision of the manuscript before it is suitable for publication. However, with adequate response and revision, the manuscript may be acceptable for publication in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. Please give careful consideration to the reviewers’ comments and revise the manuscript as may be appropriate. The revised manuscript will be returned to the reviewers for further comments. We would like to receive your revision as soon as possible, by 02-Dec-2015 at the latest. Please note that poor English grammar and writing style are grounds for rejection, regardless of the quality of technical content. 以上是编辑的意见 Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The manuscript needs major revision before possible publication. 1) English should be improved and many typos corrected page 4 line 33 affected instead of effected page 3 line 19 volumetric floret instead of volume flow 3.3 Pliot scale instead of Pilotscale, etc, etc 2) Figure 7 How did you measure static adsorption capacity? 3) Did you follow PH3 concentration at the column outlet during adsorbent regeneration? Please show such curves 4) I guess this is a problem of adsorption coupled with chemical reaction. There are many reports in the area of carbon masks related to this topic which should be mentioned and may help to clarify the analysis of results. D. Friday publications R.C. Soares, et al, “Modeling and Simulation of Carbon Mask Adsorptive Reactors”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 34, 2762-2768 (1995). J.M. Loureiro, et al, “Dynamics of Adsorptive Reactors”, in Preparative and Production Scale Chromatographic Processes and Applications, pp. Chromatographic Science Series, G. Ganetsos, P.E. Barker (ed.), Marcel Dekker, 1993. 这是第一个审稿人的意见 Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author In this paper the effect of blank 13X zeolite, or modified with CuCl2 and ZnCl2 was studied for removing phosphine from circular hydrogen of polysilicon CVD stove. As remarked by the authors, the removal of trace PH3 in circular hydrogen from stove is critical to ensure the quality of silicon products. Through this work it is shown that adsorption technologies can be every effective for that purpose. The synthesis procedure and characterization of the adsorbents is conveniently described. The fixed bed adsorption experiments were also well planned and the results very clear regarding the performance of blank 13X, and modified with CuCl2 and ZnCl2, especially regarding it′s regeneration in the modified forms since the economics of the process will depend on their working life. My major remark regarding this work is related with the regeneration studies, since it seems clear from the studies that adsorption in 13X modified with CuCl2 is chemical (Figure 9), and the modification with ZnCl2 results in a strong physical adsorption of PH3. Accordingly, after 2 or 3 cycles Cu-13X will be probably deactivated and should be throwaway increasing the economics of the process. For Zn-13X the energy needed to regenerate the adsorbent (Figure 13) will also increase the economics of the process. It will be important for the readers to see if blank 13X is fully regenerable even if the breakthrough time of PH3 is must lower than in the modified adsorbents. Accordingly, I suggest the authors to show also regeneration experiments of PH3 (desorption experiments with pure H2 or N2 and also the influence of temperature) for blank 13X and show effect in the breakthrough time in the following cycles. If adsorption of PH3 in blank 13X is physical with a lower binding energy force than in the case of modified Zn-13X, the regeneration of the adsorbent could be more efficient. Figure 4 shows a very nice breakthrough time of PH3 at -15oC (Figure 4) which means that a well-designed adsorption cycle can also transform blank 13X as a potential adsorbent to remove PH3 from circular hydrogen of polysilicon CVD stove. 这是第二个审稿人的意见 Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author This MS presents the adsorption of PH3 via loading CuCl2 or ZnCl2 on 13X. I cannot recommend its publication because this MS was very poorly written both in English and technical quality. The authors must first ask a native English speaker to help in editing the MS. Also the MS must follow the standard format requirement of I&ECR. So far the reference citation is quite a mess. 这是第三个审稿人的意见 我想请教一下前两个审稿人的意见是不是意味着修改后可以接收，第三个审稿人的意见中technical quality很差是指论文写作方面的还是研究内容及方法方面的，他没有任何具体意见，不知道怎么改。我该怎么回应这些审稿人的意见啊，请赐教。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
好运来！
已经有3人回复
-
高校老师工资真那么低么
已经有36人回复
-
产物呈油状怎么处理呀
已经有3人回复
-
孩子叛逆，我该怎么办
已经有5人回复
-
博士“读”后感。
已经有17人回复
-
广东面上基金状态可查
已经有8人回复
-
25级博士申请（仅限同济，汽车机械交通计算机）个人原因，勿喷
已经有8人回复
-
畜牧专业，sci有哪些期刊
已经有5人回复
-
博士开题
已经有17人回复
-
求教大家怎么增加自己特刊的影响力
已经有8人回复
★ ★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
自私的猫1988: 金币+2, 鼓励交流 2015-11-04 10:13:10
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
自私的猫1988: 金币+2, 鼓励交流 2015-11-04 10:13:10
|
第三个意见是说工作本身和写作都很差，估计是他看着吃力所以没有仔细看工作吧。第一个意见提到了语言差，也有一些具体的建议。第二个更正面一些，主要提了工作方面的改进。 整体看，一是大修，二是小修（稍偏向大修），三是拒稿（估计他也拒绝再审了吧？）。编辑的决定是比较照顾的，应该是大修。 修改上主要按照前两个审稿人的意见改就可以了，尤其是语言，一定要改好，编辑也特意提到了，工作再好，语言问题多也得被拒。回复第三个审稿人，一方面说语言改好了，另一方面再把针对两个审稿人的做的修改总结一下就好了，估计编辑不会找第三个审稿人再审了。 以上 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
2楼2015-11-04 08:55:12
3楼2015-11-04 11:48:00
4楼2015-11-04 23:28:41
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
5楼2016-01-15 16:32:53
越过海地蓝
新虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 546.5
- 散金: 30
- 帖子: 55
- 在线: 59.9小时
- 虫号: 6994871
- 注册: 2017-07-26
- 专业: 应用高分子化学与物理
6楼2018-04-17 00:04:55
20