Non-Thermal Plasma-Modified Ru-Sn-Ti Catalyst for Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound Degradation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Catalysts-981208 manuscript entitled “Non-thermal plasma-modified Ru-Sn-Ti catalyst for chlorinated volatile organic compound degradation”, which the authors adopt non-thermal plasma treatment for the preparation of RuO₂/Sn_0.2Ti_0.8O₂  catalysts, exhibiting enhanced DCM oxidation activities compared to the calcined counterpart. Although the characterization is well carried out, but the manuscript cannot be accepted in its current form because it has not been organized and requires substantial English editing such as:

1. The order of the manuscript sections is not clear for the readers. The Materials and methods section is before the Results section and no Conclusion section. The Discussion section different than the Conclusions section.
2. The language and grammar need editing, some nonacademic words, and using third person (We, and our), the passive voice should be used for academic writing. No space between some sentences and text reference numbers.
3. Several figure captions cannot be observed clearly by the readers (Such as Fig. 10). Figures 3.d, and h, images are not correct (Poor resolution).
4. The unit in Tables 2, and 3 should be in brackets. °C has not stated typing in the manuscript. Using Kelvin unit for temperature in page 7 line 229, where °C was used in the manuscript.
5. Many leading papers on titanium oxide, TiO₂ (titania) phases, their band gaps, and doping are missing.
6. The details of the obtained RuO₂/Sn₂Ti_0.8O₂ identification by the XRD diffraction are not provided. What is the Rietveld software, and the database being used?
7. Details on how the crystallite sizes of the RST-P and RST-C were calculated are not given. From Scherrer’s equation or Rietveld method?
8. What is the particle size of the RST-P and RST-C determined by TEM images and compared with XRD?
9. What is the effect of calcination temperature on the sample microstructure?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors used a plasma treatment method to synthesize a tin-doped titania loaded with ruthenium dioxide (RuO2) catalyst, possessing enhanced activity (T90% is 262 °C) compared to the catalyst prepared by conventional calcination method. The manuscript is properly divided in sections and subsections. It needs some corrections before its publication.

 

• The authors should introduce the acronyms before their use in the text, for example DCM in the abstract;
• The authors should check the caption of figure 1, since the text after the value of GHSV must be deleted;
• The authors should the number of figures, since figure is missing (they indicated two figures as figure 4);
• At line 171 the reference 41 is written as subscript;
• In table 4 the apexes 1, 2 and 3 are present at the end of each row, but no legend is present below the table;
• The authors presented in figure 1 the catalytic performance of the prepared catalysts for DCM oxidation. Did the authors also perform some stability tests to verify the durability of the catalysts? In my opinion they should. Moreover, the authors should compare the performance of their catalysts with some other ones active in the same reaction;
• The authors indicated in the caption of figure 1 that the tests were performed at a GHSV of 45000 mL g-1h-1, but in the subsection 4.3 they indicated the value of 22500 mL g-1h-1 for the tests. The authors should indicate the correct value;
• The authors should try to make more readable the legend in figures 3d and 3h;
• The authors should add more details related to the DBD treatment for the catalysts preparation (reactor configuration, voltage used for the treatment, and so on): regarding the voltage used, did the authors performed different tests in order to find the optimal value? Or did they refer to scientific papers in literature? In this last case they should add the proper references;
• The authors should indicate the measuring unit more coherently in the text, always either with apexes or with “/”;
• The authors should check the language, sine some typing errors are present in the text;

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work entitled "Non-thermal plasma-modified Ru-Sn-Ti catalyst for
chlorinated volatile organic compound degradation" is an original and interesting scientific proof that with the necessary design, important scientific results can be produced. Within the manuscript the authors describe sufficiently the scientific actions to achieve the goal of applying non-thermal plasma-treated catalysts with higher activity to DCM conversion and selectivity to carbon dioxide compared to thermally-treated catalysts. They, furthermore, conduct a series of characterisation methods in order to explain their findings and support their statements. However, during reading the manuscript, some minor issues need to be clarified:

Lines 71-72: Most likely the authors meant to refer to the two different methods, i.e., the plasma treatment and the thermal treatment. In contrast, they say "...plasma treated method or plasma treatment" and this creates a small confuse to the reader.

Discussion Section: In the Discussion Section, the authors state that highly charged atmosphere dut to the plasma causes high dispersion of Ru species (lines 198-200). However, in the TEM interpretation it is stated that in both RST-P and RST-C samples the homogeneous structure promoted the dispersion of RuO2 (lines 131-135). Which of the two statements holds?

Discussion Section: The authors state that plasma treatment leads to pores reconstruction in such a way that catalytic properties are favoured. Does this reconstruction correlates with XPS findings for oxygen vacancies or it only concerns the surface area?

Discussion Section: Generally, from the Discussion Section as well as for the characterisation analyses, the reader can deduce that it is the different electronic effects which lead to the improved catalytic properties of non-thermal treated samples and not so much the structural effects. Is this statement true?     

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors properly improved the paper. It can now be published in the Catalysts journal.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors properly improved the paper. It can now be published on the journal