Catalytic Hydrogenation of Anthracene on Binary (Bimetallic) Composite Catalysts
, Majit G. Meiramov, Arstan M. Gazaliev and Sergey V. Kim
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The authors significantly improved their manuscript but still I have one question regarding the calculation of the product yield. The authors presented spectra of GC analysis where some significant peaks are not identified. How the authors can state the total yield of 100% if some of their products were not identified? It must be explained and corrected. Also, I strongly recommend the authors calculate the experimental error for product composition (selectivity or yield) and include this information in the manuscript body.
Author Response
The article has been corrected in accordance with the comments and recommendations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
1. In the Abstract, the main conclusions and innovation points of the manuscript are not highlighted.
2. The part of Introduction includes 27 paragraphs, with unclear organization. The research significance of this manuscript should be emphasized.
3. The quality of the Figures is poor, needs to be improved. Especially, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
4. Some of the hydrogenation products are not clear enough, for example, is dihydroanthracene means 9,10-dihydroanthracene ?
5. How is the yield and the conversion calculated? The formula needs to be listed.
6. P=6 MPa, does it refer to working pressure or initial hydrogen pressure?
Author Response
The article has been corrected in accordance with the comments and recommendations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
In this paper, Fe and Co-containing catalysts on the CaA and ZSM-5 zeolites was prepared by impregnation method. The catalysts were used int the hydrogenation of anthracene in autoclave. The topic is no doubt of interest. However, the manuscript in the present form suffers from some disadvantages requiring a major revision. I highly recommended for authors to improve the language. Further comments on the manuscript are listed below:
1. The manuscript has the one affiliation, so I propose to remove the superscript for all authors.
2. Authors mentioned twice physico-chemical methods in the introduction:
The phase composition of the obtained catalysts was determined by X-ray phase analysis, the elemental composition was determined by energy dispersive spectroscopy, the surface morphology was studied by electron microscopy. It was found that the obtained catalysts contain iron and cobalt mainly in oxide and oxide-hydroxide forms. The phase composition of the obtained catalysts was determined by X-ray phase analysis, the surface morphology was studied by electron microscopy, the elemental composition and distribution of elements over the surface of zeolites was determined by energy dispersion spectroscopy with mapping (EDS mapping).
3. Line 118: for “Al2O3” please provide subscripts.
4. Line 134: repetitions for “far infrared spectroscopy”.
5. Line 141: Authors mentioned the “MoS2 nanoplastics”. In corresponding reference [45] the MoS2 nanoparticles are described.
6. Figure 1: What’s units of measure for axes (° for 2θ, a.u. for intensity may be)?
Which phases correspond to intense peaks in the range from 20° to 30°?
For “CoFe2O4” please provide subscripts.
Figure quality is poor, please provide the figure with higher quality (JPG format, for example). This remark applies to other figures as well.
I think the authors can shorten the range for axis X the range to 80.
7. Line 220-221: The sentence is not finished.
8. EDS (line 234-235): What about Ca for Fe-Co/CaA catalyst?
9. The abbreviation for atomic emission analysis with inductively coupled plasma is ICP-AES not ICP-OES (line 244). Please provide the description of the method in section 3.
10. I recommend the authors to bring the tables to the same form.
11. What is the accuracy of determining the yields and conversion? You provide results with different accuracy in Table 2.
Please add the description of the yield and conversion calculation in section 3. Are the yield and conversion expressed in molar or weight percent?
12. Figure 5 is absent.
13. The misprint in the “antarzen” (Table 3).
14. Section 3.3: Is the total pressure or H2?
15. Which one ZB column is you used? Manufacturer? Temperature program of column?
16. What’s response factors do you used for calculation of product yields?
Author Response
The article has been corrected in accordance with the comments and recommendations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Authors responded some of the comments very poorly. Therefore I suggest to address all comments before publications in Catalysts.
Author Response
The article was corrected in accordance with the comments. All corrections in the article are highlighted in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
In this form, the manuscript looks much better, but the authors have not answered on the point 11 and 15.
What is the accuracy of determining the yields and conversion? The authors provide results with different accuracy in Table 2. Please provide additional information in Section 3.4 and specify catalytic characteristics (conversion, yield) in Table 2. Whole numbers and fractions should be separated by the decimal point (dot), not by the comma.
What’s temperature program of column that authors used? Not specification of column!
Author Response
The article was corrected in accordance with the comments. All corrections in the article are highlighted in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this work, “Catalytic hydrogenation of anthracene on binary (bimetallic) composite catalysts”, the authors have prepared two catalysts with Fe and Co. The hydrogenation reactions of anthracene with these two catalysts were carried out, the results showed the conversion of anthracene at 400 oC, 6 Mpa H2 pressure with 1 h are 86.17% and 90.91%. But the analysis in this manuscript is not detailed enough and the description of the analysis is too simple, and the figures don’t meet the requirements of paper. For example, lacks a detailed analysis of XRD patterns; in Figure 2, the EDS elements are not clear; lack of mechanism analysis of the hydrogenation reaction……
Author Response
Please watch the trailer
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article introduce two binary composite catalysts(Fe-Co/CaA and Fe-Co/ZSM-5) .Compared the activity of two catalysts in catalytic hydrogenation.This article designed two binary composite catalysts and tested their activity in hydrogenation reaction, providing technical guidance for the design of industrial hydrogenation catalyst.I think this article can be published on catalysts, but it needs a few changes before it can be published.
1. The introduction part is a little messy, and the author should combine some relevant paragraphs.
2. Fig. 1 coordinate range is inconsistent.
3. Figure 2 is not clear enough. I can't see any information in the Figure 2. The author needs to provide clearer pictures.
4. What are the reaction conditions in Table 2? I hope the author will give the reaction conditions for catalytic hydrogenation in Table 2.
5. How about the stability of this catalyst. I hope author can add some information about this.
6. Concerning the bimetallic catalysts, more related ref.s should be cited e.g. doi:10.3390/catal12091072, 10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.01.269
Author Response
Please watch the trailer
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript Number: catalysts-2209847
Full Title: Catalytic hydrogenation of anthracene on binary (bimetallic) composite catalysts
Remarks to the Authors:
The authors studied the catalytic hydrogenation of anthracene over the Fe-Co/CaA and Fe-Co/ZSM-5 catalysts at 400 °C under 6 MPa within 1 h using a batch reactor. The synthesized catalysts were studied by XRD, FTIR, and SEM-EDX techniques. Unfortunately, I did not find novelty in this work. This manuscript can be considered for publication in MDPI Catalysts only after rigorous major revision. Please find my comments below.
1. The novelty of the manuscript is not clear. The authors should emphasize/disclose the novelty of their study in the Abstract and Conclusions sections. The proposed/studied catalysts are well-known in the literature for a long time ago.
2. The introduction section must be improved by including fresh references (for the last 2-3 years) related to the hydrogenation of PAHs instead of the reduction of NOx, Firscher-Tropsch synthesis, and CO2 hydrogenation. There are plenty of articles recently published related to the hydrogenation and hydrocracking of PAHs.
3. What is the experimental error of the catalytic activity study (selectivity, conversion, yield)? Did the authors check the reproducibility of the obtained experimental data? The product yield and anthracene conversion can not be so precise, e.g. 84.25% or 86.17%. Please correct it for the whole manuscript body.
4. Table 2 must include the reaction conditions and data with the conversion of anthracene. Figure 1 must be improved.
5. Did the authors study the effect of temperature, pressure, and catalyst amount on the product distribution and catalytic activity, and stability?
6. The authors should compare their achieved results (anthracene conversion, product selectivity, yield, reaction time, temperature, etc.) with well-known literature data (recently published) and present it in a table format.
7. The authors must provide carbon or mass balance.
8. Did the authors analyze the gas phase in the product mixture?
9. The authors must provide the composition of utilized catalysts. ICP-OES or XRF analyses can be useful.
10. The authors should propose and discuss the reaction mechanism for anthracene hydrogenation over synthesized catalysts.
Author Response
Please watch the trailer
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
