A Facile and Scalable Approach to Ultrathin NixMg1−xO Solid Solution Nanoplates and Their Performance for Carbon Dioxide Reforming of Methane
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with the synthesis, characterization and application of ultrathin MiXMg1-XO nanoplates for carbon dioxide reforming of methane. The manuscript is well written and the obtained results are clearly discussed. I recommend to accept the manuscript after minor revision.
Comments and questions
The XRD powder pattern of pure MgO and pure NiO should be added to (Figure 1).
What is the reason for the large difference in integral H2 consumption (Figure 5) between Ni0.1Mg0.9O and Ni0.1Mg0.9O-con? The Ni content was the same in both catalysts. It is possible to compare the amount of H2 consumed with the amount of Ni atoms reduced?
What means “serious aggregation of catalysts” (page 9 line 269). An increase in particle size?
What kind of vessel was used when the mixture was treated in temperature-controlled electrical oven at 100°C for 24 hours? A stainless steel autoclave?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reports Ni/MgO catalysts fro the dry reforming of methane.
The manuscript is overall well written, but the content does not highlight strong novelty nor in materials nor in their application. The materials are defined as nanoplates, but are quite similar to conventionally prepared catalysts. Furthermore, the coking resistance of the materials prepared is not sufficient, since a 2% accumulation is in any case significant for a further scale up and industrial application. The detailed comparison with literature data is insufficiently provided to understand the true improvement with respect to the state of the art.
For instance, a frank discussion on the resistance enhancement or activity improvement is not provided.
Overall, it seems routine workd without significant novelty.
For these reasons I do not support the publication of this manuscript, at least in this form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the current manuscript, the authors have re synthesized an already known Ni-Mg oxide-based catalyst having three different Ni/Mg ratios. Their study focuses on the different synthesis technique and the corresponding catalytic activity towards carbon dioxide reformation of methane reaction. Their synthesis technique is based on the one-pot coprecipitation technique and the major difference is the absence of any surfactants. The authors should explain their observations in a more coherent manner while providing examples and drawing contrasts with previous reports. Some issues in the manuscript are listed below,
- In the result and discussion section, the authors start talking about the Ni-Mg-con catalyst without providing any background on its identity. A few sentences should be added in the catalyst characterization paragraph such as which reported method was used to synthesize etc.
- How did the authors estimate the thickness of ~8 nm from the TEM images? Why is the XRD signal stronger and narrower for the Ni-Mg-con catalyst?
- Please discuss about the content of Fig. 4 in more detail. Please include the full form of H2-TPR and provide a little background about the method and what one expects to observe. In its current form the paragraph doesn't seem to make sense.
- Authors mention that their method is facile and scalable, however in my opinion they haven't provided any proof backing this claim.
- What leads to the higher catalytic activity of one of the catalyst? The authors should provide a better explanation based on the characterization results they already have.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have addressed all of my concerns in the improved manuscript.
