Protolytic Ring-Opening Cracking of Methylcyclohexane over Hierarchical High-Silica USY Zeolite: A Haag-Dessau Cracking
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the catalytic transformation of methylcyclohexane on the three Y zeolites was taken into account.
The argument is of interest for this journal and, in my opinion, the presentation of experimental results seems to be complete and their discussion adequate.
Thus, the publication of this manuscript on the Catalysts is recommanded.
However, before the publication, the following revisions are suggests:
1) please, use the same name to refers to the same compound (please control the text of the manuscript, figures and tables),
2) page 4, Figure 1: (a) and (b) are not corresponding with the text.
3) page 4:
“From pore structure parameters listed in Table 1 derived from the isotherm data, it can be seen that, total surface area (SBET) and micropore volume (Vmic) of FUSY and RUSY zeolites display a slight decline compared with those of CPY, which suggests that the introduction of mesopores and macropores has no obvious effect on the inherent microporosity of FAU structure.”
This phrase is not clear. A revision is suggested.
It is possible that this effect is limited from the low mesopore volume introduced?
4) page 4:
“As expected, mesopore volumes of FUSY and RUSY are larger than that for CPY due to the existence of mesopores.”
I have not clear the significance of this phrase. Is it possible elucidate or revise it?
5) page 5, Figure 2: Is it possible insert a segment for the length scale?
6) Page 5: Is it possible to insert a Figure with the FTIR spectra?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Main question addressed by the research: The work addresses the issues related to Protolytic ring-opening cracking of methylcyclohexane over hierarchical high-silica USY zeolite.
Originality and relevance of the topic: The topic is relevant to the field and it considers a suitable research gap.
Added value of the paper: The manuscript takes into account the study of three types of zeolites, however the main purpose of it is not clearly stated. The paper should include what benefits are critical for these assessments and clearly explain why they are analysing those and why they are needed at the end of the Introduction.
Quality of figures: Very good and easy to follow.
Specific improvements for the paper to be considered:
- The diffusion study is not clearly explained. How are the parameters estimated such as the eigenvalues?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
