Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Referee 1:

1. Page 6, (3.1): The sentence “The increment concentration .. “ is not understood,

because there is no “ratio of reactive species” defined.

Actually, the authors did not make the experiment regarding the amount of radical
species that could destroy the bond of chloroform. The term of this is just general
terminology that increasing target material that must be decomposed if the decompose
species that was existed is quite same, the conversion will be decreased. In this
experiment, the author keeps the environmental in the same in every point except total
gas flow rate. The reactor size, number of electrode plate, the distance of plate and the
nozzle diameter and also the total gas flow rate have been kept at same condition. In this
case if we said that electron and other species material that consisted in the air steam
(the main material in the input line) were same, we can said that the ratio will be
decreased to the target material (chloroform). This is what the author mean with the
conclusion of it. Reviewer is right that there is no specific calculation about it, but using
the above logic, the conclusion that decreasing of chloroform conversion due to the
ratio of active species could be applied.

2. Pages 6 and 7 and Figure 3: The authors cannot maintain their conclusion that the
rate of chloroform conversion decreases with increasing initial chloroform
concentration, since the effect of the observed decreasing power consumption has not
been taken into account. The authors failed in producing a series of experiments, where
only the initial concentration of chloroform is a variable.

Comment: gliding arc plasma has a very specific characteristic. The arc plasma was
initiated by arc production and continued by moving of arc along the plates of electrode.
The movement has the same direction with the flow of gas. In this region, based on the
power consumption, we can divide it into two regions: arc production power and
steady-state power. Generally, production of first-arc spends more energy to be
consumed. First-arc production was function of voltage and current breakdown. Many
variables were included in the breakdown process, such as: gap distance between the
electrodes, gas flow rate, species of the flowing gases, and many others. However, for
the steady-state power, it was achieved automatically after the first-arc was produced.
That is why, in this experiment, power (as function of voltage and current) was not
becoming a fixed variable. In this manuscript, the author made conclusion that
increasing concentration of chloroform reduced the chloroform conversion based on the
ratio of the active species to the concentration of chloroform in the feed stream. As
mention in the first answer, the author measured the number of some species that
contains in the feed steam and product stream, such as: oxygen and nitrogen. Based on
the result that difference among these experiment running which were quite small, the
author proposed that the number of active species that produce was quite same since the
frequency of the power supply was adjusted fixed for every point.

3. Page 7: The production of Cl2 from chloroform is not an oxidation reaction as far the
a chlorine is concerned and chlorine production is endothermic given the high bond
energy of the C-Cl bond.

Chlorine gas (Cl2) is becoming one of the product gases that has been account as the
satisfactory parameter of the process. The other is CO2 (and CO). Why the author try to
get this product? It is quite simple answer. Chloroform which has chemical structure
CHCl3 arranged by 1 C, 1 H, and 3 Cl. Here, we want to break it into the non-toxic
material. In the reaction, we must also consider the other reactant that has possible to be
taken place in the plasma reaction. As we know, chloroform was diluted in the air
stream which is consisted mostly O2 and N2. N2 was relatively inert gas although
sometimes we must take account in reaction of this species. The most possible is O2.
Based on this situation, the author thinks first that the reaction could be oxidation which
oxygen works as the oxidation agent. Many oxidation products could be produced, such
as CO2, CO, COCl2, Cl2, ClO, HCl, and others. To justify the satisfaction of reaction,
the author kept thinking that Cl2 was the best product for Cl and CO2 or CO2 for C and
H2O for H. So, in this case, the author did not mention much to the definition of
oxidation both partial or complete one. That reaction just to compare to the experiment
result which was got in this study.

4. Page 7: The effect of the “gas flow rate” (what unit would the authors give to this
semantic construction?) on the (mean) residence time of chloroform can be calculated
very simply and does not need to be examined.

Another difference of gliding arc plasma related to the residence time. It is quite
difficult to calculate the resident time of every particle in the reactor. In case of other
kind of cold plasma system, such as: dielectric barrier discharge (DBD), it very easy
because the plasma region was quite uniform in every point. But, for gliding arc, that
region could be different and it was also different depend on the flow pattern. When the
gas flow exact in the center between electrode, that gas was possible to enter the plasma
zone along the length of the electrode plates. In case, when the gas flows in the outher
site, it was high possibility to enter the plasma region in only short period, shorter that
gases that flow in the center. So, because the un-uniformity of this plasma flow, the
author insist to use the terminology gas flow rate rather than residence time. In is
general expression that author uses the term of resident time as the reason why the
conversion getting decrease due to the increasing of total gas flow rate. Although it is
difficult to calculate and measured in the exact value of resident time, we can logic it. In
this experiment variable (different gas flow rate), the author wants to know the effect of
this variable to the conversion and product distribution.

5. Page 7: The referee does not understand, why the author believe that, in the
investigated process, the C-H bond would be “broken” before the C-Cl bond despite the
fact that the latter has a lower binding energy.

In this case, the author did not mention that C-H bond will be broken first before C-Cl
bond. In this study, based on reaction 6 and 7, the author wants to compare with the
oxidation reaction. This reaction is quite good to be a guideline reaction caused the
production of Cl2 and CO, CO2 were quite much compared to the other products.

6. Page 7 and 8: Again, the authors cannot maintain the electrical power consumption
to the system stable, and their interpretation of (semi)-quantitative results is rather a

In case of frequency, that produced higher power consumption, has been investigated by
the author dependently. Some reference has also mention about it. It’s mostly caused of
the number of cycle of wave that has been changed and producing different power. In
term of product distribution which was caused by different power frequency, the author
has added the proposed opinion about that.
7. Page 8: Equation (6) is wrong, and the final statement does not hold. Anyway, this
statement could not explain, why only the chlorine production would decrease with a
decrease of the residence time and hence a decrease of chloroform conversion.

Equation 6 is not the main plasma reaction in this study. As the author mention, that
equation is taken as the comparison. If the plasma reaction follows the (complete)
oxidation reaction, the reaction could be like that. Actually, based on the experiment
result, mostly, the reaction will no follow it. Why the author think that oxidation
reaction? That is because the plasma reaction was mostly produced Cl2 and CO CO2.
Oxidation process will also produce CO CO2 and Cl2 as shown by equation 6 and 7.

8. Page 8 and 9: The description of the relations between CO and CO2 as well as of
Cl2 production and the applied frequency would need a detailed explanation.

Answer: The author has add some proposed opinion about this based on the result of
experiment. Actually, the reason why the author made a relation between CO+CO2 to
Cl2 was caused by main product it self. The satisfaction decomposition products were
CO, CO2, and Cl2. It could be strongly related each other caused C for CO and CO2 and
Cl for Cl2 was produced from the same compounds target material, chloroform (CHCl3)

Other points to be reviewed:

1. Chloroform is not a “stable” chlorinated volatile compounds

Based on the thermal stability [1], the rank of chloroform is 158-161. The author thinks
that it’s quite stable compared to the others, such as: DDT and dichloropropane.
[1]. Taylor PH, Dellinger B, Lee CC, Development of a Thermal Stability Based
Ranking of Hazardous Organic Compound Incinerability, Environ. Sci. Technol., 24,

2. The authors apparently did not make a thorough bibliographic search. Or they would
have found the literature concerning the photochemically initiated oxidation in the gas
The author has search the photochemical reaction and found some reference related to
it, such as:
[1]. NASA Panel for Data Evaluation. (December 15, 1994). Chemical kinetics and
photochemical data for use in stratospheric modeling, Evaluation Number 11.
[2]. Wu Y-P, Won Y-S, Pyrolysis of Chloromethanes, Combust. Flame, 122 (2000) 312-
And we have added some information to the reviewed manuscript to complete the
information on it.

3. The claimed high concentration capacity for the gliding arc plasma process is
contradictory with respect to the result of this work.

In this experiment, we just doing in small or laboratory scale and we design the
instrument in small capacity. Actually, it is high possibility to be made in higher volume
of reactor.

4. The use of this method to eliminate chloroform is highly questionable in view of the
production of CCl4, chlorine, and carbon monoxide.

In this case, the author thinks that it is quite impossible to reduce the toxicity of the
pollutant product into zero emission. In this experiment, the goal is not like that, but to
reduce the toxicity into less toxic material by converting or destruction chloroform to
another gases that have less toxic degree.

5. GC-FID can not be used to analyze quantitatively CCl4

By applying packed column which is filled by bentone material, the author can separate
the chloromethane material, such as dichloromethane, chloroform, and carbon
tetrachloride. The reference suggested that this column was specific column to
identified the chloromethane compounds. And after applying this column, it quite good
result that chloromethane compounds could be detected and calculated both
qualitatively and quantitatively.

6. The term “selectivity” is certainly bad chosen to quantify the production of

undesirable secondary products

Although in some point the selectivity of the desirable gases quite small, it is quite clear
to show to the reader about the performance of gliding arc plasma. We think that this
work is not only to show the result that looks good but we display the real thing that we
have got in this study, although in some points, as mention before, are not good.

7. The referee does not understand, why CO, CO2, and Cl2 are target materials of
“chloroform decomposition”, when (i) relatively large amounts of CCl4 are produced.

In term of CO, CO2 and Cl2 as the target material has been descripted in the above

8. It does not really make sense to calculate “efficiencies” and conversion on basis of
moles, and indicate all results and concentrations in v/v%.

Author thinks that the metric system (procentage, v/v%) is quite familiar to the reader
and it more applicative compare to the other system, such as mol. In case of efficiency,
the author has added the information of energy efficiency to the chloroform conversion.
Not in detail for every point of experiment, but it quite useful to know.