Impact of Primary and Secondary ZDDP and Ionic Liquid as Lubricant Oil Additives on the Performance and Physicochemical Properties of Pd-Based Three-Way Catalysts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes the use of a certain ionic liquid in combination with two types of Zn DDP as a lubricant additive to reduce friction and wear and verify their effect on the TWC. The experiments carried out are more than sufficient, the results are well explained, but the experimental part does not give enough details in order for a third party to be able to reproduce them.

• Why was this IL chosen? According to the introduction P66614 DEHP has better performance than P8888 DEHP?
• How was the IL synthesized, what was its purity, can there be impurities, that have an effect on the performance? Water content?
• Was some analysis/characterisation of the Zn DDP done? Was it synthesised or purchased, what was the purity?
• Was the same mixture ratio (gasoline to IL and to ZnDDP) used for all experiments?
• In the conclusion it will be nice to compare your result with others, such as your references 10 and 19

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. Also, we are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our manuscript. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewer. Please see the attachment, in red, for a point-by-point response to your comments and suggestions. All line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• I would suggest indicating additive type in the manuscript title.
  - Avoid abbreviations and acronyms in title, abstract and highlights. If this is not possible please introduce definition upon first appearance in the text.
  - Avoid pilling up the references. As a general rule each reference should be explained by separate sentence, especially in the literature review.
  -  In the introduction section authors should put greater focus on overview of recent similar studies.
  - Results should be placed after experimental procedure, otherwise doesn't make sense.
  - Avoid consecutive section headings without any text in between such as 2. , 2.1. and all other.
  - Eliminate border line of diagram. Also, use filling of the legend element to improve visual quality.
  - Line 293: "the Zn concentration in ZDDP2 is higher than that in ZDDP2" ?
  - Avoid providing large portion of information in the brackets. This disrupts the main text flow.
  - Abbreviations and acronyms should be defined upon first appearance in the text, e.g. line 79 and 379
  - Line 487 and 488: verb is missing
  - Line 510: "IL+ZDDP2, and IL+ZDDP2" - again mistake
  - Most of the references are older than 5 years, meaning the research is not supported by recent studies or there is a possibility that there is no more research relevance any more.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. Also, we are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our manuscript. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewer. Please see the attachment, in red, for a point-by-point response to your comments and suggestions. All line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf