Enhancing the Ethynylation Performance of CuO-Bi2O3 Nanocatalysts by Tuning Cu-Bi Interactions and Phase Structures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work presents Enhancing the Ethynylation Performance of CuO-Bi2O3 Nanocatalysts by Tuning Cu-Bi Interactions. The application and comparison studies achieved in this research are important from the industrial and academic views. It is recommended to be published after including and addressing the below listed comments with major corrections.
- The authors should eliminate the current grammatical and punctuation mark errors and also confirm the correct scientific English. Make sure to avoid or insert commas on the right positions. Make sure to use the definite and indefinite articles on the right positions.
- The authors should write the complete terms of all abbreviations before the first use for both abstract and main manuscript.
- The introduction part of the manuscript needs more development to explain the novelty and importance of the reported work and including the supported catalysts while citing previously published articles.
- The authors should explain how tuning the catalysts improves its efficiency clearly.
- The authors should completely draw the reaction paths for the figures and graphs.
- Draw a reaction scheme for Figs. and tables and for the recycling section.
- The authors should include the yield of the products after recycling in a table in the revised manuscript.
- The authors should add the important review and experimental published papers for heterogeneous and reusable catalysts including the below mentioned references on their revised manuscript:
Catal. Sci. Technol., 2014, 4, 4416-4425.
Catalysts 2015, 5(2), 534-560.
Chem. Rev., 2014, 114 (3), pp 1761–1782.
- Mention the reaction condition for all reaction plots and also recycling graph on the revised manuscript.
- The authors can provide more scientific catalytic studies such as reaction optimization, and elaborate their research.
Author Response
Reply to reviewer #1:
The comments of reviewer #1:
1. The authors should eliminate the current grammatical and punctuation mark errors and also confirm the correct scientific English. Make sure to avoid or insert commas on the right positions. Make sure to use the definite and indefinite articles on the right positions.
Our reply:
Thanks for the reviewer’s comments. According to the suggestion, we have our manuscript checked by a professional English editing. Please see the following certificate.
2. The authors should write the complete terms of all abbreviations before the first use for both abstract and main manuscript.
Our reply:
Thanks for the reviewer’s comments. We have checked the complete terms of all abbreviations before the first use for both abstract and main manuscript.
3. The introduction part of the manuscript needs more development to explain the novelty and importance of the reported work and including the supported catalysts while citing previously published articles.
Our reply:
We think the reviewer’s comments are appropriate. The paragraph 2 of the introduction(section 1) further explained the novelty and importance of the reported work. When citing the previous literature, the reported catalysts are also included, which are marked in red in the same paragraph.
4. The authors should explain how tuning the catalysts improves its efficiency clearly.
Our reply:
According to the previous literature, the introduction of supports and/or promoters is an effective strategy for improving the ethynylation activity of Cu-based catalysts. However, as far as we know, studies on the relationship between the structure and performance of the Cu-based catalysts are still scarce. In recent years, our group has carried out in-depth research and found that regulating the electronic configuration and dispersion of the Cu species via adding supports and/or promoters is the essence of the catalytic performance improvement. The above viewpoint has been clearly introduced in the article. Please see introduction(section 1) and catalytic performance(section 2.3).
5. The authors should completely draw the reaction paths for the figures and graphs.
Our reply:
Thank you for the reviewer’s comments. We have added the the reaction paths in catalytic performance(section 2.3) and marked it in red.
6. Draw a reaction scheme for Figs. and tables and for the recycling section.
Our reply:
We think the reviewer’s comments are very appropriate. We have added the scheme in figure 13.
7. The authors should include the yield of the products after recycling in a table in the revised manuscript.
Our reply:
According to the suggestion, we have lised the yield of the products after recycling in a table 2 and marked it in red.
8. The authors should add the important review and experimental published papers for heterogeneous and reusable catalysts including the below mentioned references on their revised manuscript:
Catal. Sci. Technol., 2014, 4, 4416-4425.
Catalysts 2015, 5(2), 534-560.
Chem. Rev., 2014, 114 (3), pp 1761–1782.
Our reply:
We think the reviewer’s comments are appropriate. We have added the above references on the revised manuscript. Please see the references [1], [54], and [56].
9. Mention the reaction condition for all reaction plots and also recycling graph on the revised manuscript.
Our reply:
Thank you for the reviewer’s comments. We have added the reaction condition with the red mark for all reaction plots and also recycling graph on the revised manuscript. Please see the section 2.3 catalytic performance and 3.3 catalysts test.
10. The authors can provide more scientific catalytic studies such as reaction optimization, and elaborate their research.
Our reply:
We think the reviewer’s comments are appropriate. According to the comments, We have investigated the influence of reaction temperature on the catalytic activities of the catalysts and elaborated the research. Please see the section 2.3 catalytic performance.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is well done and present.
Author Response
Reply to reviewer #2:
The comments of reviewer #2:
Thank you for your recognition of our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript titled "Enhancing the Ethynylation Performance of CuO-Bi2O3 Nanocatalysts by Tuning Cu-Bi Interactions and Phase Structures" reports the synthesis of CuO-Bi2O3 Nanocatalysts by coprecipitation method and their caalytic activity in ethynylation reactions. Authors have successfully designed the catalyst samples and also tuned the interactions between copper and Bi species via high calcination temperatures. The prepared catalyst samples were characterized well towards structural and morphological properties. The optimized catalyst shows higher catalytic activity and the correspond mechanism was proposed. The manuscript was well organized. Obtained results are well analyzed with valid discussions. Hence the current manuscript is suitable for publication in Catalysts Journal. Before publication, authors need to modify the manuscript as per the following directions.
01. line 17, correct the sentence, "prepared by co-precipitation at different calcination temperatures"
02. Powder X-ray diffraction patterns in Figure 1 should be indexed to different planes of CuO, Bi2O3 and CuBi2O4.
03. Line 125, correct the word, "dope" as "doped".
04. line 170, correct the Cu2p3/2 B.E. value as 933.1 eV.
05. The results and discussion part related to XPS spectra in Figure 4 is in sufficient. Please assign every peak to the corresponding energy levels. If necessary peak fitting to be done.
Author Response
Reply to reviewer #3:
The comments of reviewer #3:
1. Line 17, correct the sentence, "prepared by co-precipitation at different calcination temperatures"
Our reply:
Thank you for the reviewer’s comments. We have revised the sentence and marked it in red.
2. Powder X-ray diffraction patterns in Figure 1 should be indexed to different planes of CuO, Bi2O3 and CuBi2O4.
Our reply:
According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have attributed the XRD patterns to the different planes of CuO, Bi2O3 and CuBi2O4 and marked them in red.
3. Line 125, correct the word, "dope" as "doped".
Our reply:
Thanks for the reviewer’s comments. We have corrected the word and marked it in red.
4. line 170, correct the Cu2p3/2 B.E. value as 933.1 eV.
Our reply:
Thanks for the reviewer’s comments. We have corrected the B.E. value of the Cu2p3/2 and marked it in red.
5. The results and discussion part related to XPS spectra in Figure 4 is in sufficient. Please assign every peak to the corresponding energy levels. If necessary peak fitting to be done.
Our reply:
We think the reviewer’s comments are appropriate. According to the suggestion, we have assigned the Cu2p3/2 and Cu2p1/2 to the corresponding energy levels and fitted the Cu2p3/2 peak. Please see figure 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is improved and the authors have included the required corrections. I suggest the manuscript will be published after approve of the editor.
