Interfaces in MOF-Derived CeO₂–MnO_X Composites as High-Activity Catalysts for Toluene Oxidation: Monolayer Dispersion Threshold

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend publishing the work with the title “Interface Engineering in MOF derived CeO2-MnOx composites as high activity catalysts for toluene oxidation: Monolayer dispersion threshold” after major revision. The work is inserting, and the authors used several characterization methods to explain their results, however some points must be taken into consideration as follows:

1. The title need to be changed as it is mentioned Interface engineering but the work indeed has not so much with engineering
2. In line 86-87 the XRD of Mn-BTC are in good agreement with literature but what are the reflexes for which phase it should be mentioned
3. In 2.1.2 the XRD and surface area were discussed but nothing on the crystallite size tabulated in Table 1
4. It is reported in line 110-11 that all samples showed well developed mesoporous structure and features of type IV isotherms which is not correct according to the IUPAC the isotherms are for type II. The samples have very low surface areas. The surface is of the interior void space but the material is not mesopores material. The pore volume should be added
5. The resolution of Fig.S3 is not good must be enhanced
6. In line 120 it is mentioned that the nanorod is composed of numerous nanoparticles so what is the size of these particles
7. In line 138 the Ce cations spread on the surface of MOF so where is the MOF it should be decomposed is there any explanation
8. In line 147 is reported due to the entrance of Cen⁺ where the Ce would enter. Also how the Ce separated the Mn leading to higher specific area. More discussion is need
9. In line 154 what is meant by the transformation of Ce dispersed state it is not clear and what type transformation meant
10. In line 152 the phases for higher Ce content but how about lower Ce what are the phases found
11. The interaction between Mn and Ce lead to the formation of Mn2O3 but then the author mentioned that the interaction induced the valence of Mn3O4. The sentence is not clear
12. The paragraph “on the other hand line 188 related to the crystal size and the XRD should be moved to the discussion chapter of XRD
13. In general, the discussion of the catalytic characterization should explain the catalytic results and this is missed in the whole paper
14. In line 210 Ce interacts to form a compound what compound?! Line 214 the intersection is the demarcation is not clear
15. What about the stability of the catalyst in the reaction?
16. Also, the English needs extensive reviewing as line 43 of removed to remove, line 143 Fig.3 and not The, line 184 what is more please use another word, line 340 fabricated better were prepared or synthesized, line 120 no past for keep

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Interface Engineering in MOF-Derived CeO2-MnOX Composites as High-Activity Catalysts for Toluene Oxidation： Monolayer dispersion threshold

 

The following comments and suggestions are needed to address the quality of the manuscript.

• Add critical and technical information. Improve the abstract with the addition of all information regarding input parameters, research methodology, and critical outcomes.
• The problem intended needs to be more clear. WHY/WHAT is the significance of this study? How it is better from previous literature? Improve the literature with the latest studies.
• Novelty and objectives of current are not well clear.
• Results need to be more expanded scientifically.
• Provide the errors or uncertainties of experimental measurements.
• Please extend the section 3: Materials and Methods in detail. Very short description.
• Conclusions are not well summarized. Present the key results point by point with concluding remarks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors do describe the catalytic use of a Ce-Mn mixed oxide, formed from a Mn based MOF and some percentage of cerium inside.
The species have been characterized through several methods.

The catalytic activity was studied and some conclusions were given.

The article deserves several improvements before acceptance.
First of all is the English style. Authors should favor shorter sentences. (l.24-26, 40-42, 50-52, 61-65, 72-75 as examples)

Add references (l.45-47,

L.91 : 1.4% difference in TGA is high. The authors should explain in detail the reason. XRD does show ONLY the crystalline phase. It is more than sure that a part of the oxides are not crystalline.

The authors should insist more on the oxidation state of the cerium and catalytic activity than the crystallinity. If, as claimed by authors, only the cerium in surface is active, the authors should try to link to the percentage of accessible cerium atoms.

It seems than after a certain percentage (what is called the dispersion threshold by authors ?), the activity is not different, indicating than a high portion of cerium are not accessible. Maybe not on surface (in the crystallite, maybe ?)

l.350 : should be completed.

In SI : Fig S4 . How does this scheme come ? From which conclusions obtained by which data ?

After those corrections, the article should be revised again.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Interface Engineering in MOF-Derived CeO2-MnOX Composites as High-Activity Catalysts for Toluene Oxidation： Monolayer dispersion threshold

I am thankful to the kind editor to provide me this manuscript for the review process.

Authors have presented all the queries from my side and all information provided in the manuscript is fulfilling the journal criteria, so I recommend accepting this paper for journal of Catalysts.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors took into account the comments and the article can be accepted