Effects of Preparation Methods of Pd Supported on (001) Crystal Facets Exposed TiO2 Nanosheets for Toluene Catalytic Combustion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript by Gui Yun Yu et al., the authors have investigated the effects and pros and cons of impregnation, deposition-precipitation, photo-deposition, and in-situ reduction methods on TiO2 nanosheets supported on Pd catalysts for toluene catalytic combustion. Moreover, Pd supported on P25 prepared by the impregnation method was considered as the reference for further compression. While the topic of this study is well-established and might be in the interest of Catalysts readers, there are some concerns and issues which authors should address properly to improve and enrich the manuscript as below. Furthermore, the novelty and significance of this study were not properly presented and the authors have overclaimed.
1. There is a 38% similarity between this manuscript and previously published literature which is not acceptable. Most of the content has been borrowed from the following publications:
i. doi:10.1016/j.apcatb.2010.02.021
ii. doi.org/10.1007/s11164-020-04352-z
2. title should change from “Effects of prepared methods…” to “Effects of preparation methods …”.
3. Line 14, do not mention the different characterization methods in the abstract.
4. More results should be presented in the abstract. Rewrite this section.
5. What are the benefits of the impregnation method over the other methods? Briefly discuss it in the abstract.
6. What does Pd/ TiO2 NS stand for? Use the complete word the first time and later use the abbreviation.
7. From 43 cited references only 5 of them are recent and the rest are from 2.17 and earlier. This shows that this topic might not be the trend anymore.
8. Cited references are not appropriate and relevant.
9. Lines 46-48, “Lin et al. found the Pt-TiO2 film with exposed {0 0 1} facets showed considerably higher UV photocatalytic activity than pure TiO2 film with exposed {0 0 1} facets’, what is the reason? Explain it.
10. While the main objective of this study is the effects of preparation methods, in the introduction its literature and background were not reviewed. Rewrite the introduction and introduce these four techniques.
11. Line 90. If there is only one subtitle in this section, numbering is not required.
12. Section 2.2 and 2.3 are exactly borrowed from the authors' previous publication https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-020-04352-z with no changes, updates, or proper citation.
13. Authors used abbreviation such as IM, DP, and PD without lines 154-155. “Firstly, the activities of Pd/TiO2 NS catalysts are higher than that of Pd/TiO2 P25 basically. introducing them in the manuscript.” This is an overclaim and figure 1 does not support it.
14. There is no Pd/TiO2 NS catalysts in figure 1.
15. Pd/TiO2 P25 physical properties were not presented in table 1.
16. Line 174-177, a decrease in the specific surface area is not in the favor of catalytic activity. Justify why despite of reduction in specific surface area in Pd/TiO2 catalysts compared to TiO2 nanometer sheets, they are frequently used and investigated in this study.
17. Section 3.2, Pd/TiO2 must be presented.
18. Line 196, “The Pd particles were clearly observed in Pd/TiO2 NS-PD and Pd/TiO2 NS-NaBH4, their average size is about 10 nm and 7 nm, respectively”. It is overclaimed with no proof. The particle distribution plot should be presented.
19. Figure 2b's resolution is not appropriate.
20. What is the significant difference between figure 2c and 2d, despite the zoom-in?
21. Discussion figure 3 is missed. Figures 3a-d should be critically compared with each other and discussed in detail.
22. Section 4, adds a recommendation for future studies.
23. Line 267-274. Authors repeat their findings again without any discussion or comparison with other works and justification. Rewrite the conclusion.
24. Line 275-289. Explain why and how the impregnating method can provide the best catalyst at the molecular level.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer, our answer is in the attachment and is named "reply 1".
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Key Comments
1. Line number 49: Reference 12 remove the underline.
2. Line number 46-49: TiO2 should be replaced with TiO2.
3. All figures' X and Y – axis units should be uniform.
4. XPS analysis should be rewritten and explained more.
5. Conclusion should be solid
6. Reference numbers 20 and 21 journal names should be uniform.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer, our answer is in the attachment and is named "reply 2".
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revision has been performed according to the comments.
