Author response

EES-05-0100: Conversion of CO2 by Gliding Arc Plasma

Submitted to the Environmental Engineering Science

Editor
1. For the correlation description between supplied energy and the number of CO2
decomposed or CO generated, we added some sentences which explain the energy
efficiency comparison between gliding arc plasma and other non-thermal plasma methods.
In order to make it clearly, we also put the mathematical correlation between energy
efficiency, supplied power and decomposition of CO2. Based on this information, we think
that the reader will easy get the meaning of the figure 4. We also added some information
which show the reason why the efficiency was higher in gliding arc plasma which is caused
by more energetic species there than DBD, for example.
2. Thank your for the editor comment for the statistical case of figure 3. The reason why we
put this information is based on the error analysis (standard deviation, s) of each point. The
reproducibility experiments showed the good similarity of the data which gave the error
value of less than 0.01. In this experiment, the error value was calculated by:

∑( x − x)
2

s=
n −1

We did not put the error bar in that graph because it is too small. In term of analysis, our GC
instrument which was used to measure the CO2 concentration was very sensitive and the
detection range was in a ppm level. So, the little change of concentration of CO2 could be
detected well, however, as we said before, our experiment data of 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd were
similar each others in one point and can be distinguished with other points.

Reviewer 1
1. Thank you for the good suggestion. We added information of those in this revised
manuscript.

Reviewer 2
1. First, we want to deliver our thanks to reviewer 2 for checking the linguistic problem of our
manuscript. And following his recommendation, we have changed all of the un-correct
sentences in the previous manuscript. We put a yellow mark on every sentences that we
changed and different from the previous manuscript.
In term of statistical case, as we said before in the previous explanation (in editor section),
 our statistical data error (s) for each point shows a very small value. We can make a
different for each different point.
For figure 6 and 7, we deleted the note number 2 because in our simulation we don’t
include the third-body molecules (general case). We already define the specific rate
coefficient for each reaction, for example O2.

We thank to the editor and reviewer for their concern to our manuscript. And still, we are
welcomed for every question on this manuscript to make it perfect.