Next Article in Journal
Construction of a Novel Chimeric Dextransucrase Fused to the Carbohydrate-Binding Module CBM2a
Previous Article in Journal
A Facile Synthesis of Bi2O3/CoFe2O4 Nanocomposite with Improved Synergistic Photocatalytic Potential for Dye Degradation
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Covalently Bonded Ir(IV) on Conducted Blue TiO2 for Efficient Electrocatalytic Oxygen Evolution Reaction in Acid Media

Catalysts 2021, 11(10), 1176; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11101176
by Chau T. K. Nguyen 1,2,†, Ngoc Quang Tran 1,†, Thi Anh Le 1,2 and Hyoyoung Lee 1,2,3,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Catalysts 2021, 11(10), 1176; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11101176
Submission received: 3 September 2021 / Revised: 23 September 2021 / Accepted: 27 September 2021 / Published: 28 September 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper by Lee et al presets introduction of Ir(V) component to TiO2 and its catalytic oxygen evolution. The new results are obtained in this work. Experimental work was carefully done.  I recommend publication of this manuscript in Catalysts.  The following minor issues are addressed in revision of the paper.

1) Category, Discussion, should be reworded as Results and Discussion because many results are presented here.

2) page 3, line 8 from bottom: 34.8”theta" should be corrected. 

3) page3, last line: "are" should be corrected as "is".

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1 comments:

This paper by Lee et al presets introduction of Ir(IV) component to TiO2 and its catalytic oxygen evolution. The new results are obtained in this work. Experimental work was carefully done. I recommend publication of this manuscript in Catalysts. The following minor issues are addressed in revision of the paper.

Answer) Thank you for your valuable comments. We have considered your concerns and incorporated them into the revised manuscript to improve the quality of our research outputs. We hope that this revised version has fully addressed your concerns.

1. Category, Discussion, should be reworded as Results and Discussion because many results are presented here.

Answer) Thank you for your comment. We agree that many results are presented in "Discussion.” Based on your suggestion, the category “Discussion” has been reworded into “Results and Discussion” in the revised version as follows:

Line 110 (highlight version): 3. Results and Discussion

 

2. Page 3, line 8 from bottom: 34.8 ”theta” should be corrected.

Answer) We apologize for this unclear description. We modified the revised version as follows:

Line 114-115 (highlight version): the formation of IrO2 (101) on blue TiO2 was verified by powder X-ray diffraction studies, which determines the peak position of 2θ at 34.8°  ”

 

3. Page 3, last line: "are" should be corrected as "is."

Answer) Thank you for pointing this out. We revised "are" to “is” in the revised version as follows:

Line 121-122: “The Ir element detected on blue TiO2 components is contacted on BI-15 NPs, and no significant impurities were detected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article focused on the electrocatalytic performance improvement of IrO2-blue TiO2. However, even the electrocatalytic performance of TiO2 was improved after decorated by IrO2, TiO2 is not appropriate for electrocatalysis. Rejection is recommended.

  1. It should be explained why the catalytic performance of BI-20 was worse than BI-15 .
  2. This article proposed and emphasized the existence of the covalently Ir(IV) bond on conducted blue TiO2. Corresponding experimental data should be provided. And how this special structure affected the catalytic process should be explained.
  3. The stability test should be added to show the tolerance of the catalyst under acidic conditions.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have considered all your major and minor comments for improving our research. Based on your feedback, our manuscript has been significantly improved, and we hope that this revised version has fully addressed your concerns. In particular, point-by-point answers for each concern raised in this manuscript have been provided the attached file below. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Acceptance is recommended.

Back to TopTop