Utilization of Selected Nanoparticles (Ag2O and MnO2) for the Production of High-Quality and Environmental-Friendly Gasoline
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
This manuscript has once again improved.
Edited parts' English language and style is better. Some important points are better explained and it flows better with higher consistency.
However, overal it is not ready for publication.
If results section is further improved according to all reviewers' previous comments it would be acceptable.
For example this optimal sample is still not very clearly explained and neither how results in "3.3. Effects on health and environment" are calculated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
This manuscript needs several major modifications before it is considered for final publication. My specific comments are:
1. Title: Correct it to “Utilization of selected nanoparticles (Ag2O and MnO2) for the production of high-quality gasoline. The use of the “Environmental” word has no sense here.
2. Subscripts in the nanoparticle formula and NOx need to be corrected throughout the manuscript.
3. Line 12: The destructive effects of gasoline pollution are well established nowadays. Scientists are 12 searching for a new mixture to replace today's gasoline. These sentences lack proper linking and should be rewritten more clearly. Destructive effects are established nowadays?
4. Major sentence linking and unappropriated length should be corrected.
5. English of the paper needs a thorough scrutinize by a native speaker.
6. What is environmental gasoline? I have heard this for the first time. Are the authors referring to the environmental consequences of gasoline here?
7. A large number of statements are not supported by relevant citations. Authors need to avoid such claims or provide proper references. E.g. Line 117 and many others.
8. Figure 4: Electron transfer and catalysis action mechanisms are missing. This reaction can also be provided as a simple reaction (text) also, but I suggest providing detailed information within the figure.
9. The authors have taken three speeds i.e., 2000, 2500, and 2900 rpm. What the test was different was not 500 rpm for all experiments such as 2000, 2500, and 3000 rpm. 400 rpm difference should be discussed properly.
10. Why the tests were conducted on an old model motor which might be outdated for future application?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have revised the manuscript well as per my comments. I suggest acceptance in current form. However, the title should be modified during the production stage.
Suggested title: Utilization of selected nanoparticles (Ag2O and MnO2) for the production of high-quality and environmental-friendly gasoline
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All the questions have been answered satisfactorily. I think the manuscript can be published in its present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
This resubmitted manuscript has been again improved. According to this reviewer the main issues persist, but if it gets heavily edited and the english improve (only some parts are fine) it can be considered for publication.
All reccomendations have been taken into account, but the results (comparisons) and conclusions are still weak.
In section 3.1, why sample Y1 is optinal is still not adequately described.
Also why for the exhaust temperature the optimum is shown for 2000 rpm and the situation for 2500 is not described in respect to Y1, is no clear. Also at the same subsection (lines 186-192) why there are differences for different rpm it not explained (similar cases appear in many parts of section 3)
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been improved following revision. However, this paper does not meet publication standards yet.
The title is confusing - what is environmental gasoline?
Figure 1 appears to be from ref. 56, and should be deleted. Use the acutal engine used in the experiments.
The gas analyzer should be provided with more details, e.g. manufacturer, detection limit of different gases, how calibration is done.
Results.
The lack of replication is still a main concern. Without repeating experiments, the results are random.
Figure 5. There is no direct evidence of near complete combustion (2500 rpm, Y1), purely based on CO measurement. In addition, results in Figs 6 and 7 contradict Figure 5. When CO is low, CO2 is expected to be high and O2 is expected to be low. But we see the opposite trend for 2500 rpm, Y1.
Overall, this paper has major issues.
