Highly Efficient Catalytic Reduction of Nitrobenzene Using Cu@C Based on a Novel Cu–MOF Precursor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article "Highly efficient catalytic reduction of nitrobenzene using Cu@C based on a novel Cu-MOF precursor" discusses the copper catalyst Cu@C, synthesized via Cu-MOF carbonization, in the reduction of nitrobenzene. The first thing worth noting is the incorrect arrangement of graphs and tables in the text and the presence of typos, which slightly reduces the perception of the work. In the future, I advise you to bring figures and tables next to those places in the text where they are described.

I have the following comments on the work:

1) It will be useful to initially clarify what structure the Cu-MOF material has. Many MOFs have a 3D porous structure, and this material, as I understand it, is obtained in the form of two-dimensional layers. It is worth mentioning this so that the reader better understands the results you get.

2) Round off surface area, volume, and pore size

3) "... catalyst structure, which released more surface and active centers" - it is early to talk about the number of active centers 

4) "... the decrease in particle size indicated that the produced metallic Cu did not show an obvious agglomeration phenomenon" - What kind of decrease of particle size you are talking about? On the contrary, in the micrograph I see copper particles of different sizes, some reach almost 200 nm - and isn't this agglomeration?

5) Does the use of MOF give any advantages - for example, over activated carbon, or some kind of polymer carriers?

The work contains typographical errors, English language should be improved

Author Response

Thank you for giving advice for me and I have corrected the position of the picture and table. And please see the attachment for my notes to your Comments and Suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This contribution presents a new Cu-MOF catalyst and its derivative Cu@C used for the reduction of nitrobenzene, which exhibited high nitrobenzene conversion and a rapid reaction time. Therefore, I find the manuscript interesting and worthy of publication. I suggest that it could be accepted after addressing the following revisions:

1. On page 2, paragraph 2, "Metal-organic frameworks are new types of solid zeolite materials" is not accurate. ZIFs are zeolitic materials which is one type of MOF. MOFs in general are not zeolite-like.

2. On page 5, please provide more detailed information on the sample processing steps after acid-base etching for the experiment examining the stability and recyclability of the catalyst.

3. On page 7, include a figure showing the pore size distribution.

4. On page 8, please provide the mass fraction of specific Cu species based on the XPS Cu 2p spectrum. Additionally, include the full survey spectrum, as well as the spectra of O 1s and C 1s.

5. On page 11, the statement "We speculated that the catalyst further exposed the originally unexposed catalytic active sites after the reaction, further improving catalytic efficiency" requires citation of relevant literature for support.

6. Please include higher resolution images for FT-IR and XPS of Cu@C.

After addressing these revisions, I believe the manuscript will be suitable for publication.

Overall, the quality of English is good.

There are some typos and mis-uses, such as "occured" on page 2, "moleculars" on page 3, "FTIR spectra was" on page 4, "couid" on page 9. 

There are also some mis-used or missing punctuations and articles.

Some sentences need to be refined to make the statement clear.

Author Response

Thank you for giving advice for me and please see the attachment for my notes to your Comments and Suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Highly efficient catalytic reduction of nitrobenzene using Cu@C based on a novel Cu-MOF precursor" describes the synthesis of nanocatalysts using MOF as the precursor. It is almost impossible to read the manuscript as a large number of sentences has no meaning. In addition, the authors are totally confused with MOF and MOF-derived catalysts. Even, in the abstract, the authors mentioned the two terms as identical. Similarly, the authors can not distinguish between hydrogenation and reduction or hydrogen and hydride. The major concerns are highlighted in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Poor

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out the problems in the logic and grammar of my article, and the wrong use of nouns and concepts. I have revised the article and corrected the mistakes. Thank you again.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

As the authors have addressed most of the points raised by the referee, the manuscript can be accepted.