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. 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.

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).

2. Oxygen is not a radical as mentioned on page 8.

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.

4. It was mentioned on page 10 that the ratio of Cl2 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?

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 Cl2 selectivity
is always lower than CO+CO2 selectivity? No explanation is provided.

6. If equations (5) and (6) are the dominant reactions, then why the selectivity of Cl2 and
CO+CO2 are never in phase in Figures 3, 4, 5?

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

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.