Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

Referee 2:

Review of MS #2021 by Indarto et al.

General Comments:

The gliding arc reactor is widely exploited in many applications, as it is a simple and
inexpensive way to generate non-thermal plasma. One of the applications is the emission
control of volatile organic compounds (waste and exhausted treatment). Thus the idea
presented in the paper is not a novel one, although the results of parametric study on
chloroform are presented here.

The author thanks for reviewer’s comment. Yes, that is absolutely true that the application
of the gliding arc plasma to decompose or reduce the amount of emission VOC. Some
scientists also have applied this technology to decompose some pollutants, such as H2S [1]
and N2O[2]. The novelty of this research is not regarding to the application it self to
decompose the pollutant but the material/compound that has been used as the object of
decomposition. In this study we have used chloroform (CHCl3) as the target material. No
paper (as far as the author knows) that present about it. So, stressed point here is not in
the application of gliding but the new material that has been used here as the target of the
plasma decomposition process.
[1] V. Dalaine, J. M. Cormier, and P. Lefaucheux, J. Appl. Phys., 83 (5), 2435 (1998)
[2] K. Krawczyk and M. Mlotek, Appl. Catal., 30, 233 (2001)

I find the paper is not suitable for publish in its present form. The quality of writing is
way below the standard of any international journal. The authors should seek the
assistance of professional writers as major overhaul of the paper is necessary.

The author thanks for reviewer’s comment on the standard of English written. In terms of
the quality of English of the paper, in this revised manuscript, the authors have been
consulting and re-constructed the manuscript with help from colleagues and English
consultant. You will find the difference on this revised manuscript.

Specific comments/questions:

1. The analysis of results is very scanty in places. For example, author mentions on Page 8
that “Figure 3b shows the power consumption decreased……….chloroform increased”,
however offers no explanation why power consumption will decrease with a small
increase in chloroform concentration (max concentration of chloroform in air is 8 ppm).

Regarding to the decreasing power consumption as the increasing of chloromethane
concentration, it could be mainly affected by the breakdown voltage and current of the
chloroform, which was diluted in the air (mainly). Every (gas) compound has a specific
value of breakdown voltage and current. Compared to the air breakdown, chloroform
has a power-breakdown lower than air. After initiating arc plasma process
(breakdown), the power was getting decreased to the stabilized power. In this
experiment, the stabilized power could not be manually adjusted. It was done
automatically. Generally, gases which have higher breakdown power will have higher
stabilized consume power also. That is why the consumed power has been decreased
when the concentration of chloroform in the air was increased.
2. Oxygen is not a radical as mentioned on page 8.

On page 8, the author shows the reaction of partial and complete oxidation reaction,
not the whole plasma reaction. In this case, the author wants to compare the result of
plasma reaction and oxidation reaction by comparing the total selectivity of Cl2 and
(CO+CO2) of the gaseous product reaction. And the reviewer is true that in this case,
in partial and complete oxidation reaction, the oxygen form is not a radical one. But, it
is possible to form radical in plasma reaction. The reason why the author wants to
compare with oxidation process reaction is the main products were dominated by Cl2
and CO+CO2. Oxidation of chloroform, if it follows reaction 5 and 6, was also
producing Cl2 and CO+CO2 as the main product of the reaction. It’s quite good to be
compared each other due to this reason. And by comparing the ratio of Cl2 and
CO+CO2 that has been produce, the main reaction could be possibly same in term of
gaseous products.

3. The term “selectivity” for chlorine is confusing as chlorine is produced by both

Reactions 5 and 6. “Selectivity” term is used here in a non-conventional way. “Yield” or
% of chloroform as Cl2 or CO+CO2 at the outlet will be less confusing.

As mentioned before (answer number 2), the author just wants to make a comparison
to the oxidation process both complete and partial one (reaction 5 and 6). This is not
describing the plasma reaction. The term of selectivity, the author thinks, is much more
important compared to the yield or % of gaseous product to the gas input injection
because it can show clearly about the distribution of product reaction although these
terms could be calculated and converted easily from term of ‘selectivity’ to ‘yield’ of
‘% product’. In this case, selectivity could describe the effectiveness of the plasma
process on the final product that we want. Author thinks that the high satisfaction of
the reaction could be achieved if the plasma reaction could produce high selectivity of
Cl2 and CO or CO2.

4. It was mentioned on page 10 that the ratio of Cl 2 to CO or CO2 is 1.5 at lower gas flow
rate. However, this is not very clear from any of the Figures 3, 4, and 5. How did author
come to that conclusion?

The author thinks that figure 3 and 4 have clearly showed that the reaction mechanism
give the selectivity ratio of Cl2 was higher compared to the selectivity of (CO+CO2) in
lower flow rate of injection gas (180 Nl/min). In case of higher total gas flow rate (240
and 300 Nl/min on figure 3 and 4), the selectivity of (CO+CO2) was getting higher
than Cl2. Based on the trend of these graphs, the author makes the conclusion that the
exact ratio of the selectivity of Cl2 to CO+CO2 into 1.5 was possible to be achieved at
the lower total gas flow rate (180 Nl/min or lower). The author thanks to the reviewer
regarding the comment on figure 5. In this case, the author did not make clear
explanation in case of different frequency. Using different frequency, the reaction could
be different due to different power consumption of plasma process.

5. Why with increasing frequency selectivity of CO+CO2 decreases while the conversion of
chloroform increases? What other reactions occur in high frequency and why? Why Cl2
selectivity goes through an optimum at higher flow rate of 300 Nl/hr? Why Cl 2 selectivity
is always lower than CO+CO2 selectivity? No explanation is provided.
In this manuscript, the author makes deep explanation on the result of experiment
rather than in term of reaction kinetic. But, in reviewed manuscript, the author added
some information related to the reaction. To answer the question why the selectivity of
CO+CO2 was decreased when the conversion of chloroform increased, it could be
caused by increasing the redundant number of Cl in radical form. CHCl3 is consisted of
3 Cl and 1 C. If we increased the number of conversion of chloroform, the amount of
Cl in radical form will totally increase 3 times more the C (in case of perfect
decomposition). Increasing number of Cl radical will increase the probability to collide
(again) with C. It means this phenomena will reduce the possibility of C radical to react
with O radical or O2 in high energy level to produce CO and CO2.
In case of high and low frequency case and another case of kinetic reaction, the author
did not do the simulation relating to it. It will be done by next step of this project.
First, the author wants to explore the application of gliding arc plasma to decompose
chloroform. By adjusting three variables (total gas flow rate, concentration, and power
frequency) the works has been done and finished. Proposing way of reaction has been
proposed here by collecting the information from other paper. Plasma simulation in
gliding arc environment is quite interesting to be studied because the special form of
the plasma. It’s also quite difficult and spends a lot of time. In this case, by proposing
some mechanism reactions were quite enough to know the basic reaction of it.

6. If equations (5) and (6) are the dominant reactions, then why the selectivity of Cl 2 and
CO+CO2 are never in phase in Figures 3, 4, 5?

The author did not mention that equation 5 and 6 become the dominant reaction of
chloroform decomposition using gliding plasma. The author has already provided
information: ‘... with partial and complete oxidation reaction of chloroform’. So, once
more, the author wants to compare the experiment result to the oxidation reaction. The
reason is the amount of Cl2 and CO+CO2 are quite dominant compared to the other
gaseous product. It is quite useful if the author attach the information of it (oxidation
process) on the manuscript as the comparison reaction. However, if equation 5 and 6
become the dominant reaction, the gaseous product distribution of Cl2 selectivity
compare to CO+CO2 selectivity must follow 1.5. But, the result is quite different and
only in lower gas flow rate the results were closed to the oxidation process.

7. Authors should provide an approximate energy efficiency of the process.

Author thanks to the reviewer advise to add the information relation to the energy
efficiency. Author has provided with energy efficiency in the revised-manuscript
explanation. Terminology of power consumption is also quite popular in the
application of plasma technology to the process reaction. In this case, the author has
calculated the specific energy efficiency in term of conversion of chloroform in every
point of experiment and made an average of it. It caused that every point in this
experiment has specific energy efficiency. This information has been added to the

8. Conclusion is very weak. So what do we get out of this study? How this technology is
comparable/better with/than the best available technology? Instead of flow rate,
conversion as a function of residence time probably will be a better indicator for the
researchers in this field.

The author has added some more information related to the experiment result of
chloroform decomposition using gliding arc plasma. Regarding the usage of residence
time instead of flow rate, the author thinks that it’s not quite correct. Gliding arc
plasma is different from the other cold plasma such as dielectric barrier discharge
which is has quite uniform plasma zone. The author has done the experiment by using
the different nozzle and injection flow rate but keep the time resident in the reactor and
the result is different. This is caused due to the different flow pattern of the gas when it
enters the plasma zone between the plate electrodes. Although in this paper, the author
mentioned about the different total gas flow rate will give the different resident time, it
is quite difficult to calculate the exact time of gases entering the plasma zone from the
beginning to the end. Author just used the general terminology of reaction, that
increasing total gas flow rate will reduce the residence time of gases in the reactor, in
the other hand, decreasing total gas flow rate will increase the time of gases in the
plasma zone of gliding. So, in this case, the author suggests to remain the term of total
gas flow rate instead of residence time.