Author response on reviewer questions

Me th ane C on versi on Usi ng D iele ctr ic Ba rrier D is ch ar ge:

Comp ari so n with The rmal Pr oces s and Ca ta lyst Effe cts
written by: Indarto et al.

Referee A:
1. Please further polish the languages of the paper.
Answer:
Thank you very much for reviewer’s suggestion to ‘clean up’ our manuscript, especially
for language problem. We are considering it and in the revised manuscript, we changed
some sentences which could be ambiguous or not clear. We checked the grammatical as
well as the linguistic.

Referee B:
1. … However, as I know, the experiments showed in the paper have little relativity on
dielectric barrier discharge, it's only the normal electric discharge process. The
reactor of dielectric barrier discharge is slightly different from that of normal
electric discharge process (Please read the relative eferences). Normally, in the
Dielectric Barrier Discharge process, there are catalysts or other solid materials
presented between the cathode and anode. The reactor showed in the paper is more
like a corona discharge reactor, because no materials are filled between two
electrodes and the catalyst bed is only located in the end of the reactor. Therefore,
whether the author may consider revising the title of the paper
Answer:
Thank you very much for the comments related with the correction statement or
terminology of dielectric barrier discharge (DBD).
In this case, the reviewer 2 probably has a misunderstanding with our reactor system.
We are sure that our reactor is DBD. In our cylindrical reactor, we use 2 straight-
parallel wires as the inner electrode and silver film as the outer electrode. Between
these two electrodes, there should be some material as the barrier, so it can be called
as barrier discharge. Yes, in our reactor, pyrex (tube) itself is the barrier between two
electrodes. So, our reactor system is already following the requirements of DBD
system, e.g. two electrodes (inner and outer electrode) and a barrier between two
electrodes. In term of references, we can also say here that we have published some
papers on DBD plasma with exactly same configuration with our current system.
However, in order to avoid the ambiguous meaning of DBD, in our revised manuscript
we have changed the way to describe our reactor. It will be clear that we used
dielectric (non-normal dielectric system, as reviewer 2 said)

2. The catalysts prepared in the experiments were only processed by calcinations

without reductive process. So that the metals on the catalysts showed different
values, the Pt and Ru kept mainly Pt0 and Ru0, and Ni kept Ni2+, respectively. It is
meaningless to compare the catalytic activity, especially the hydrogenation activity
of metal and metal oxide in the discussion section of the paper.
Anwer:
Thank you for the reviewer question and correction on it. We miss to put one sentence
related with reduction program after calcinations (oxidation process). That information
has been added in our revised manuscript. We did reduction process for our catalyst by
flowing 10 ml/min H2-rich gas at temperature of 400oC. One more thank to reviewer for
the correction.

3. In P7, the authors believed that "At a higher flow rate, the collisions are more
effective although the percentage of conversion is lower, as seen in Figure 4. More
numbers of methane molecules are converted at higher flow rates than that at lower
ones.", which is conflicted with the previous discussion: "Lower flow rates will give
longer chance for the molecules to collide with energetic species, such as
electron.", and the reaction data. As we know, more collisions will lead to more
numbers of methane molecules reacting, and higher conversion of methane
followed. However, the results in Figure 3 showed that the conversion of methane
decreased with the flow rate increasing. The energy efficiency is mainly depended
on the reactor designing.
Answer:
Thank you very much for the comments related with the effectiveness of the plasma
reactions. What we want to say could be like this. It is correct that in the fixed supplied
power, the conversion of methane will increase at the lower flow rates condition as the
residence time of methane molecules increase. However, the phenomena will be
different when we see it from the molecular point of view. As we said, the effectiveness
of the process is calculated based on the total molecule of converted CH 4 per total
supplied power from the generator. It means that we can not say that the process
efficiency is lower at the higher flow rates caused by lower conversion of CH 4. But, it
can be higher as we calculate (multiply) the mole of converted methane with the total
flow rate of methane.
That is what we have done to analyze the process/power efficiency. We agree with
reviewer opinion that more collisions will lead to more numbers of methane molecules
reacting, and higher conversion of methane followed. The first statement we said that
more numbers of methane molecule are converted at higher flow rates than that at
lower ones. Although the numbers of converted molecules are higher, it does not mean
that the whole conversion rate will also higher because it will be compared with the
initial injection (input) of methane. In this case, we can easily look at the equation that
we used to calculate it. For calculation conversion (rate), we compare between
converted mol of methane with inputted mol of methane. It will be dimension less. And
it’s quite different with the calculation of process efficiency. So in the second
statement, we did not say that the process is effective. We just gave a statement that
lower flow rates gave a longer chance for methane molecule to collide with energetic
species, for example electron.

We thank very much for the availability of the reviewers to check our manuscript. We
appreciate it. On behalf of team member, I also want to deliver our thanks to the editor
of the Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry for giving us the chance. We are welcomed for
every questions as well as information on this manuscript.