Recent Advances in Coke Management for Dry Reforming of Methane over Ni-Based Catalysts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments

 

Journal: Catalysts

Manuscript ID: catalysts-2879365

Type of manuscript: Review

Title: Recent Advances in Coke Management for Dry Reforming of Methane over Ni-based Catalysts

Authors: Zhenchao Xu, Eun Duck Park* Submitted to section: Industrial Catalysis

Special Issue: Heterogeneous Catalysis for Clean Energy Production and Carbon Dioxide Utilization

 

 The authors studied literature regarding coke deposition in Dry Reforming of Methane (DRM) reaction. This subject is widely debated, and it is interesting for the international, not only academic, community. Nevertheless, the manuscript, in the present form, contains topics that should be better organized and discussed, avoiding repetition to improve reading comprehension. Moreover, attention should be paid in the text to the graphic style used for the labels of the various systems; as an example: NiZr, Ni/ZrO₂, Ni-ZrO₂ or NiCo_, Ni-Co. The suggestion is to make a univocal choice.

English language needs minor revision.   

 

The manuscript should be reconsidered after major revision. Comments and suggestions for the authors are reported below.

 

1.          Introduction

Lines 28, methane cannot be considered as a low pollution component.

Line 75, in my opinion this review should not be considered only for scholarly contribution.

 

2.1       Deep methane cracking

Lines 119-120, the claim “increasing the mobility of lattice oxygen ions and surface oxygen vacancies” should also contain the systems which provide such an item. 

 

3.1.1  Oxide-supported catalysts

Lines 231-233, “The preparation method….” this assertion is valid for any catalytic system and in any case.

Line 248, “inverse chemical vapor deposition” should be explained.

Line 251, how small should Ni particles be?

Line 255, “ZrN precursor” should be clarified.

Lines 264-268, the mobility of oxygen species on the surface of ZrO₂ support is scarcely reported, with respect to CeO₂ support.

Lines 300-301, “However, owing to the smaller pore size…” what does it mean?

Lines 303-314 could be summarized.

 

3.1.3  Other supported catalysts

Lines 357-375 could be summarized.

 

3.2    Bimetallic and alloying Ni-based catalysts

Lines 377-380 could be summarized.

 

3.2.1.2. Ru-Ni catalysts

Lines 412-413, probably it could be useful a brief explanation.

 

3.2.1.3. Pt-Ni catalysts, 3.2.2.1. Co-Ni catalysts, 3.2.2.2. Fe-Ni catalysts, 3.2.2.3. Mo-Ni catalysts, 3.2.2.4. Cu-Ni catalysts

These paragraphs could be summarized avoiding repetition.

Line 484, “Ni_0.2Co_0.3/S-2”, it should be added that S-2 is a silicalite.

Line 589, symbols O^* and O^# need a brief explanation.

 

3.3. Structured approaches for anti-carbon catalyst

Lines 618-622 contain concepts already stated.

 

3.3.1 Core-shell catalysts

 

Line 697-, zeolites have been already discussed. The whole 3.3.1 section could be summarized and inserted in the previous sections.

 

4. Summary and outlook

In my opinion, this paragraph should not be a conclusion section but a useful starting point to develop the various sections of the review and add value to the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language needs minor revision. In particular, lines 374, 542 and 558-559 (“however” repeated twice) should be revised.  

Author Response

Dear a reviewer,

We really appreciate your kind and valuable comments. Please see the attached file in which we have tried to revise our manuscript based on your valuable comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, Xu et al. offer a comprehensive overview of recent developments in coke management for dry reforming of methane over Ni-based catalysts. The authors delve into the mechanisms of coke formation and explore recent design strategies for anticoking catalysts, such as support optimization, bimetallic catalyst design, and structured catalyst development. Additionally, they provide a forward-looking perspective on the future of dry reforming reactions. Overall, the manuscript is well-prepared and can be accepted with minor revisions.

Comments:

1.  It is suggested to provide a brief discussion on the coking mechanism of different CO2 reduction reactions (e.g., 10.1021/acscatal.2c03842; 10.1038/s41467-020-14672-8; 10.1016/j.xcrp.2022.100949; 10.1021/accountsmr.2c00006), so that this manuscript can find a broader audience.

2.      It would enhance the manuscript to include a summarizing figure illustrating the design strategies for Ni-based anticoking catalysts.

3.      To further enrich the content, it is recommended to provide comparisons of different studies and discussions about the results for each section (e.g., section 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3) based on the authors' own insights and opinions.

Author Response

Dear a reviewer,

We really appreciate your kind and valuable comments. Please see the attached file in which we have tried to revise our manuscript based on your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

My suggestion to summarize all the sections of the manuscript, from 3.2.1 onwards, avoiding repetitions, has not been considered. Work organization could be improved and a further revision should be required. Nevertheless, this additional reviewing process could be too long to get an excellent result.

For this reason, if the editor agrees to publication in the present form I do not oppose.

 

Line 306, “b” is not meaningful, replace with “ zeolite-b”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English was good.

Author Response

Dear a reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attached file, in which we have tried to respond to your comments as far as we could.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf