Evaluation of Heteroleptic Pt (II) β-Diketonate Complexes as Precatalysts for the Photoactivated Curing of Silicone Resins

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is my second review of the paper reported by A. Biffis et al about the preparation, spectroscopic characterization and precatalyst behavior of heteroleptic Pt(II) diketonate complexes. In this revision, the authors kindly revised their manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments, and all my concerns were adequately addressed. Thus, I think this paper is almost ready for publication in Catalysts. Only one additional comment is that the wavelengths of UV and blue lights used for the curing experiments should be described in the caption of Figure 4 and the footnote of Table 1.

Author Response

We thank this reviewer for the appreciation. We have now specified the employed wavelengths in Figure 4 and Table 1 as requested.

Reviewer 2 Report

The MS entitled: “Evaluation of Heteroleptic Pt(II) β-Diketonate Complexes as Precatalysts for the Photoactivated Curing of Silicone Resins” describes synthesis, characterization and application of some platinum complexes. Here are some remarks and comments which should be considered.

• Complexes 1-6 has been included in the scheme, but no structural data have been provided. Authors are suggested to include analytical data (such as IR and NMR) of these complexes in the SI.
• 1 & 2: Fix the y-axis and remove horizontal lines.
• Materials and methods: There are no data of ³¹P NMR, but instrument details have been given, please check.
• There are spelling mistakes in the MS (coumarin, Trazenoxide), authors are suggested to check and fix this issue. Replace comma by dots (such as 0,0711 g etc.).
• Authors are suggested to include IR data of the complexes. Also, I do not see any discussion on the structural characterization of the complexes (other than UV-Vis). Authors are suggested to include the discussion.
• Authors are strongly encouraged to conduct DFT studies to shed light on the mechanism of curing. This is really needed to enhance the value of the MS.
• Authors used abbreviations which are not defined where it appeared first (For ex: TBDMS), check.
• The overall quality of the English is not up to the mark and should be revised to improve the overall readability of the manuscript.

Besides, authors should pay attention to the other mistakes in the manuscript and revise carefully. Overall, I suggest major revision of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have carried out considerable additional work to clarify and accommodate most of the constructive comments raised by the reviewers.  Authors are suggested to change/check following items:

1. Edit Fig. 1-3 (use proper axis, and remove horizontal lines),
2. Replace p by π,
3. Include the source of curcumin (whether commercial or extracted).

Author Response

Author's Response to Reviewer 2:

1. Edit Fig. 1-3 (use proper axis, and remove horizontal lines) [horizontal lines have already been removed in the previous version of the paper; I am sorry but I do not understand what the reviewer means by "use proper axis"]
2. Replace p by π, [Done; one replacement made]
3. Include the source of curcumin (whether commercial or extracted). [Done]