Thermal Pollution Mitigation and Energy Harnessing of the Condensation Process of an Olive Oil Extraction Refinery: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is interesting. However,

• the term "Thermal pollution" is not appropriate for the content of the article. It should be changed. Rather, it is the extraction process that pollutes because thermal phenomena are not correctly taken into account in the implemented. process.
• * a section should be inserted in the article for comparison with the techniques used in neighboring countries like Spain and France for 

Author Response

Please find in the attached file the answers to your query. We've attached a version of the article where the changes are highlighted in red. Thank you for your precious feedback. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript presents a thermal pollution issue from a Portuguese olive oil extraction refinery and the assessment of mitigation measures. The main issue relates to water use from a river for a cooling process, which outcome in a discharge water temperature increase and, thus, in a high environmental impact. In general, the manuscript content is interesting, carefully written; however, minor improvements in the reviewer opinion are possible.

Section 2 – State of the Art

1. Line 56 – Correct the reference error, i.e. “[? ]”;
2. With the aforementioned studies in mind, justify the authors’ work need and clearly state the work objectives.

Section 4 – Methodology

1. Lines 145 - Please rewrite the sentence “The reservoir capacity conditions the industrial process ...” in order to improve clarity;
2. Lines 158 – 159 – Can the authors clarify how they assess the flow regime?
3. Figure 6 – Please indicate in the figure the location of the hexane heat exchanger. This improvement allows the reader to identify how the heat transfer occurs;
4. Equation 2 – Can the authors clarify if the heat losses to the environment or through the pound walls are neglected? In any case, please indicate the assumption within the manuscript.

 Section 5 – Results

1. Lines 200 – Is the 1.39 kg/s constant over the day?
2. Regarding sections 5.2 to 5.4, it is not straightforward to evaluate the heat transfer process within the pound and heat recovery system; therefore, it is advisable to include a simple diagram of the heat exchange within the pound and the heat recovery system; the diagram should include temperatures and mass flow rates, and other relevant variables values. The authors may find a simplified sketch as an example for the pond in this report attachments;
3. Line 250 – Did the authors mean the refinery process is complex?

Author Response

Please find in the attached file the answers to your query. We've attached a version of the article where the changes are highlighted in red. Thank you for your precious feedback. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf