An Efficient Electrocatalyst (PtCo/C) for the Oxygen Reduction Reaction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
Comments on your manuscript are attached as pdf file. I hope answering these will improve the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: An efficient electrocatalyst (PtCo/C) for oxygen reduction reaction
Authors: Bingxue Hou , Xinlei Luo , Ziheng Zheng , Rui Tang , Qi Zhang , Mortaza Gholizadeh , Chengcheng Wang
Recommendation: Major revisions needed.
General Comments:
PtCo nanoparticles encapsulated on carbon supports are prepared by simple modified polyol method with ethylene glycol, the structural, microstructural, compositional and electrochemical properties being discussed. Also, the catalytic behavior of the as-synthetized nanoparticles for ORR was investigated. The structure of the article fulfills the structure of a research article. However, there are some issues, on which the authors may provide further clarification.
1. page 1, lines 23-24: the PEMFCs transforms chemical energy into electricity, not the reverse. Please rephrase the sentence!
2. the abbreviations should be defined when first mentioned in the text – attention at: J, ADT, RHE etc;
3. page 3, XRD patterns – the diffraction peacks of CoPt alloy should be indexed;
4. page 4, Figure 2 legend mention that “Element mapping of PtCo/C catalysts”, but no data is presented!
5. page 5, line 146-147, the authors mention that: “All curves have a pair of voltammetric peaks in the (not tha) range of +0.6 to 1.0 V”. Thus, only one peak is visible on the Pt/C CV curve, at 0.8 V. Please explain this behavior.
6. page 6, Figure 5: please provide graphs with the same scale!
7. page 7, Figure 6: the CoPt alloy on the graphs in Fig.6 are noted Co/Pt/C – the notation should be changed;
8. page 7, Figure 7: Authors should explain further why the current increase with time. Is more and more Pt atoms presents on the surface?
9. Some references should be added; newer bibliographic data must be cited.
Some textual errors are found in the text, such as: L31 – electrocatalysts, L72-73 – change the font; L100 – LSV- linear sweep voltammetry; L136 – partially, L145 – Fig. 4 a and b.
Some sentences should be rephrase: L62, L102 (Thet…)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have addressed my comments and concern
Author Response
Thanks. We have carefully recorrected the English version of manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Catalysts, but english language still needs improvement and needs to be checked carefully.
Author Response
Thanks. We have carefully corrected the English version of manuscript.
