Next Article in Journal
Recent Advances of Photocatalytic Hydrogenation of CO2 to Methanol
Previous Article in Journal
Application of Raw and Chemically Modified Biomasses for Heterogeneous Cu-Catalysed Conversion of Aryl boronic Acids to Phenols Derivatives
Previous Article in Special Issue
Performance of Sulfide-Driven Fuel Cell Aerated by Venturi Tube Ejector
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Electrocatalysts Based on Novel Carbon Forms for the Oxidation of Sulphite

Catalysts 2022, 12(1), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal12010093
by George Pchelarov 1,*, Dzhamal Uzun 1, Sasho Vassilev 1, Elena Razkazova-Velkova 2, Ognian Dimitrov 1, Aleksandar Tsanev 3, Adriana Gigova 1, Nadezhda Shukova 2 and Konstantin Petrov 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Catalysts 2022, 12(1), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal12010093
Submission received: 15 December 2021 / Revised: 8 January 2022 / Accepted: 11 January 2022 / Published: 14 January 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes the oxidation of sulfites to sulfates using higher fullerene carbon composite structures. Overall, the results show a qualitative study that seems interesting. The manuscript can be considered for publication after addressing the following minor comments.

  1. From the study, it is not clear how higher fullerenes can be capable of converting sulfites to sulfates.
  2. Please describe the role of Manganese acetate in catalyst composites.
  3. Authors mentioned, CO adsorption layer could play an effective role in converting sulfites to sulfates, but the justification is not convincing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Electrocatalysts based on novel carbon forms for the oxidation of sulphite" has several issues as mentioned below. In that way, I recommend a major revision. 

(I) Introduction section should be completely reformulated. It does not possess coherence among the paragraphs and the reaction studied is poorly mentioned/explained.

(ii) XRD and SEM should be better explained.

(iii) Is N2 sorption the most accurate probe for carbon-based materials with such a low interaction with those molecules? The authors should consider in repeat these analyses using CO2 as a probe molecule. Why there is a hysteresis with such a strange shape in the material MnAP-L?

(iv) XPS spectra of O1s and Mn2p should be deconvoluted and better explained.

(v) Why some parts of the manuscript are written in bold letters?

(vi) Why SEM analyses were not explored in the discussion of the results?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Since all the suggestions that I made in the previous version were addressed, I, therefore, recommend the acceptance of this manuscript to be published in Catalysts.

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.


Back to TopTop