Numerical Integration of Weight Loss Curves for Kinetic Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a method to simulate weight loss curves for kinetic analysis. The topics is interesting.
The abstract focusses too much on criticizing what was done in the literature. the real outcome of their work is not enough underlined.
The introduction is too long. It is not relevant to include figures in this section. In the lines 42-44, the data n, m, E/R ... are not defined.
The structure of the manuscript is not clear enough. Subsections would be useful.
The quality of the figures is poor.
The method of the authors allows a good fit of the experimental data. Nevertheless it is based on the different decomposition reactions occuring in the material. The nature of these reactions is not directly accessible by the TG experiments. To me it is required to use complementary methods to get this information. This should be adressed in the paper.
I am not a specialist in this field. I am wondering whether the authors are the only ones to use this method to simulate TG curves.
The conclusion is missing.
Although the topics is interesting, explanations and more complex examples are missing to conclude on the reliability of this method.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript use approximations of integral or derivative forms of the kinetic law in thermogravimetric analysis.
Chapter introduction is strange, only three main chapters are given. I will recommend the classical order 1. Introduction, 2. Experimental, 3. Results and discussion, 4. Conclusions. In particular, there is no conclusion chapter, the results should be discussed and compared with other authors.
- Line 22 It is worth extending the description of equations and methods widely used in the calculation of reaction kinetics, in particular because they are used in the manuscript.
- Fig. 1-7 the information about type of samples should be given.
- Fig 1-2 the result should be given in experimental section or authors should cite original article.
- Line 51-56 the discussion should be deeper.
- Please, explain the formula 1,
- All figures please replace commas with dots.
- Please explain how the temperature measurement differed from the standard one.
- Please explain why polystyrene, coffee husk and polyethylene were selected for the analysis.
- Fig. 3 please explain symbols K1, E1, K2, E2,..
- Fig. 10. Please explain the temperature of decomposition of PS is too high in comparison to results other authors. The thermal degradation of PS should finished in 400 °C.
- Line 206-207 it is worth providing the degradation temperatures of biomass components (cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin).
- Line 221-230 is repetition
- Line 236-237 explain the values.
Overall, the novelty value is low.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your corrections.
The conclusion is still missing.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The conclusion is missing, the results should be discussed and compared with other authors.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
