H2-Rich and Tar-Free Downstream Gasification Reaction of EFB by Using the Malaysian Dolomite as a Secondary Catalyst
, Salmiaton Ali 1,2,*, Nor Anisa Arifin 3, Raja Mohamad Hafriz Raja Shahruzzaman 3, Wan Azlina Wan Abdul Karim Ghani 1,2, Taufiq-Yap Yun Hin 4 and Abdul Halim Shamsuddin 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposed manuscript regards the application of dolomite as a secondary catalyst for biomass gasification. The ratio of catalyst to biomass (C/B), activity in gasification reaction and tar conversion were evaluated. The results represent the effects of routine analyses in the field, however, they are very interesting and important from a practical point of view. In my opinion, at least general characteristics of dolomite before and after catalytic tests should be performed for a better understanding of the process.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable input/suggestion on this manuscript that enable us to upgrade the manuscript.
We agree with your valuable suggestion. Unfortunately, the characterisation of the catalyst after the catalytic reaction was not evaluated and the first author (which carried out the experimental work) is no longer affiliated with the institution and no longer have permission to access the facility. The detail characteristic of the dolomite has been reported previously by the first author [REF 29] as mentioned in LINE 117. Brief description of the differences between these three catalysts in term of chemical composition and pore characterisation is now inserted in Table 1 (LINE 126-127).
Reviewer 2 Report
Article quite interesting for Catalyst reader's, and well structured.
Nevertheless, quality of results presentation and conclusions sections can be improved.
Results section is presented always after experimental methodology section, not before, as showed on the text. Please, change the items.
Figure 2, yield must be presented, preferably, as %. Please, change the Y-axis of figure 2.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable input/suggestion on this manuscript that enable us to upgrade the manuscript.
1. Article quite interesting for Catalyst reader's, and well structured. Nevertheless, quality of results presentation and conclusions sections can be improved.
Reply: Thank you. The summary and the figures have been improved as advised. Please refer to the corrected version of the manuscript.
2. Results section is presented always after experimental methodology section, not before, as showed on the text. Please, change the items.
Reply: This section has been revised as advised. Thank you very much for the input.
3. Figure 2, yield must be presented, preferably, as %. Please, change the Y-axis of figure 2.
Reply: This section has been revised. Thank you very much for the input.
