A Highly Efficient Monolayer Pt Nanoparticle Catalyst Prepared on a Glass Fiber Surface
, Yusuke Horino 2,3, Tadashi Ohtake 2,4, Kazufumi Ogawa 2 and Yoshifumi Suzaki 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors addressed raised points. Paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved their manuscript during revisions so the paper can be published, in the reviewer opinion.
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Reviewer 3 Report
- Please specify the crystallographic planes of the platinum nanoparticles for as-received and heat-treated material along with the appropriate PDF card.
- How the optimal catalyst dosage was selected for the catalytic tests?
- What is the repeatability of obtaining described materials?
- Please compare the BET specific surface values obtained with other Pt-based materials described in the literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accepted in the current form.
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
In this contribution, authors report on the use of monolayer platinum nanoparticle catalyst prepared on glass fiber surface.
Overall, results are consistent with experimental data.
Authors should provide some information of thermal properties (TGA-DSC) of investigated systems before the paper can be considered for publication on Catalysts Journal.
At the same time, authors should comments on the (possible) coke formation on catalyst surface.
Author Response
In this contribution, authors report the use of monolayer platinum nanoparticle catalyst prepared on glass fiber surface.
Overall, results are consistent with experimental data.
Comment: Authors should provide some information of thermal properties (TGA-DSC) of investigated systems before the paper can be considered for publication on Catalysts Journal.
Response: Unfortunately the thermal characteristics (TGA-DSC) could not be measured as we do not have access to the relevant measurement device.
Comment: At the same time, authors should comments on the (possible) coke formation on catalyst surface.
Response: This time, no coke is used.
The following has been added to the revised manuscript (Line 90–91): “However, in the future, evaluation after forming coke is necessary.”
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript „Development of high-effective and monolayer Pt nano-partcile catalysts prepared on glass fiber surface“ deals with employing 3-trimethoxysilyl-propanethiol for silylation of glass fiber surface to deposit Pt nano-nanopraticles gaining interaction of SH groups with Pt. The manuscript is short and informative. However, there are few major concerns that should be addressed by the authors before publishing:
(i) line 18: …was about 10 times, … 10 times what? Please explain.
(ii) line 19: Please explain “this technology”.
(iii) Section 1.: The reviewer is not an English mother tongue. However, sometimes 2 or 3 short sentences are more informative that 1 long sentence. The first 5 lines at the beginning and 5 lines at the end of Introduction should be rewritten by the authors.
(iv) The authors very often use the term “burning rate”. This term is not defined anywhere in the manuscript. Does it mean “conversion of octane” ?
(v) Table 1: please define Sample 1, Sample 2, Sample 3 in the section 3. Materials end methods. It seems that the authors just define one prepared Sample and one “blank” sample.
(vi) Please define “Loading rate”. Is it loading of Pt in the catalyst in wt.%? If yes than “catalyst weight” and “precious metal loading” in Table 1 is a piece of redundant info.
(vii) The catalysts are finely calcined at 350 degree C. Please make a comment on your expectation about residual carbon or Sulphur coming from 3-trimethoxysilyl-propanethiol. SH groups attract Pt. SH groups are probably removed by the calcination. So, Pt is then fixed to fiber glass without Sulphur bond, presumably. Is it right?
(viii) More realistic catalytic test should be suggested in the Conclusion. Sure, 10 times higher loadings of Pt is very dispersed in the catalysts and this Pt is so 10 times more active than Pt in the commercial catalysts. But in reality, butane concentration on the air was not monitored. It was expected that it was the same during catalytic test. Long term test must be done and so on. So, readers should be informed about that.
To sum up, major revision was suggested. The author should make their manuscript more dense. Table 1-3 could be condensed into one Table. The nomenclature of the catalyst codes should be unified na dwell explained through the entire body of the manuscript.
Author Response
The manuscript „Development of high-effective and monolayer Pt nano-partcile catalysts prepared on glass fiber surface“ deals with employing 3-trimethoxysilyl-propanethiol for silylation of glass fiber surface to deposit Pt nano-nanopraticles gaining interaction of SH groups with Pt. The manuscript is short and informative. However, there are few major concerns that should be addressed by the authors before publishing:
Comment: (i) line 18: …was about 10 times, … 10 times what? Please explain.
Response: This text has been modified in the revised manuscript to be more specific (Line 18): “The precious metal loading ratio of the proposed catalyst was approximately seven times that of the commercial catalyst”.
Comment: (ii) line 19: Please explain “this technology”.
Response: This text has been modified to “The proposed method” for clarity.
Comment: (iii) Section 1.: The reviewer is not an English mother tongue. However, sometimes 2 or 3 short sentences are more informative that 1 long sentence. The first 5 lines at the beginning and 5 lines at the end of Introduction should be rewritten by the authors.
Response: The manuscript has been edited by a professional English language editing service.
Comment: (iv) The authors very often use the term “burning rate”. This term is not defined anywhere in the manuscript. Does it mean “conversion of octane” ?
Response: Yes, this term refers to the octane combustion rate. This term is now used consistently throughout the revised manuscript.
Comment: (v) Table 1: please define Sample 1, Sample 2, Sample 3 in the section 3. Materials end methods. It seems that the authors just define one prepared Sample and one “blank” sample.
Response: The following has been added to the revised manuscript (Line 51–53): “Table 1 shows the precious metal loading rate (precious metal particle weight/catalyst weight x 100) for three catalyst samples and one general catalyst sample prepared under the same conditions.”
Comment: (vi) Please define “Loading rate”. Is it loading of Pt in the catalyst in wt.%? If yes than “catalyst weight” and “precious metal loading” in Table 1 is a piece of redundant info.
Response: Please see the above response, which defines the loading rate, i.e., (precious metal particle weight/catalyst weight x 100).
Comment: (vii) The catalysts are finely calcined at 350 degree C. Please make a comment on your expectation about residual carbon or Sulphur coming from 3-trimethoxysilyl-propanethiol. SH groups attract Pt. SH groups are probably removed by the calcination. So, Pt is then fixed to fiber glass without Sulphur bond, presumably. Is it right?
Response: That is correct. When used as an automotive exhaust gas catalyst, SH groups are likely removed by calcination. Therefore, the proposed method fixes the Pt to the fiber glass surface with the SH group then heated to 350 ℃, which melts the fiber glass surface and fixes the Pt on the fiber glass surface.
Comment: (viii) More realistic catalytic test should be suggested in the Conclusion. Sure, 10 times higher loadings of Pt is very dispersed in the catalysts and this Pt is so 10 times more active than Pt in the commercial catalysts. But in reality, butane concentration on the air was not monitored. It was expected that it was the same during catalytic test. Long term test must be done and so on. So, readers should be informed about that.
Response: The need for further work has been discussed in the conclusions section, as follows (Line 181–182): "However, as only octane evaluation was performed in this study, further evaluation under a gas atmosphere is also necessary”.
To sum up, major revision was suggested. The author should make their manuscript more dense. Table 1-3 could be condensed into one Table. The nomenclature of the catalyst codes should be unified na dwell explained through the entire body of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled Development of high-efficientive and monolayer Pt nano-particle catalyst prepared on glass fiber surface describes the topic of catalytical performance of platinum nanoparticles. Unfortunately, the Authors did not take care of the comprehensive characteristics of the Pt-glass-fiber material or the visualization of data presented in the manuscript, so at the moment the work is not suitable for publication.
Please find a list of questions, comments and tips below.
Title of the work need correction, maybe something like 'The highly efficient nanosized platinum catalyst obtained on glass fiber' There is no information in the introduction of the possibility of using Pt-based materials in electrochemistry, e.g. for hydrogen evolutionI would suggest adding optical/SEM photos of glass fiber without and with platinum nanoparticles, so the reader can look on this catalytic materials firstly on macroscale
Figure 1 - the quality of SEM pictures is low, photo markings are completely lost. Have the Authors tried to perform EDS analysis? And what is more, EDS mapping, which could also help determine if coverage is even? What is the composition of the layer being deposited? Material characteristics by XRD and BET methods is mandatory
Figure 5 requires editing, deleting commas and standardizing the number of significant digits (as well as all other graphics) What is the experimental evidence that glass fiber is coated with a Pt monolayer?
Author Response
The manuscript entitled Development of high-efficientive and monolayer Pt nano-particle catalyst prepared on glass fiber surface describes the topic of catalytical performance of platinum nanoparticles. Unfortunately, the Authors did not take care of the comprehensive characteristics of the Pt-glass-fiber material or the visualization of data presented in the manuscript, so at the moment the work is not suitable for publication.
Please find a list of questions, comments and tips below.
Comment: Title of the work need correction, maybe something like 'The highly efficient nanosized platinum catalyst obtained on glass fiber'
Response: The title has been modified to “A highly efficient monolayer Pt nanoparticle catalyst prepared on a glass fiber surface”.
Comment: There is no information in the introduction of the possibility of using Pt-based materials in electrochemistry, e.g. for hydrogen evolution
Response: The purpose of this study was to develop a catalyst for exhaust gas using new materials and methods; therefore, hydrogen evolution is not particularly relevant to the manuscript.
Comment: I would suggest adding optical/SEM photos of glass fiber without and with platinum nanoparticles, so the reader can look on this catalytic materials firstly on macroscale
Figure 1 - the quality of SEM pictures is low, photo markings are completely lost. Have the Authors tried to perform EDS analysis? And what is more, EDS mapping, which could also help determine if coverage is even? What is the composition of the layer being deposited? Material characteristics by XRD and BET methods is mandatory
Response: Figure 1 (c) shows a macro-scale SEM photograph of the glass fiber without the Pt nanoparticles. Moreover, Figure 1 confirms that equivalent Pt nanoparticles to those obtained from the manufacturing company were obtained in the experiments. Unfortunately, EDS mapping was not possible due to scale issues.
Comment: Figure 5 requires editing, deleting commas and standardizing the number of significant digits (as well as all other graphics) What is the experimental evidence that glass fiber is coated with a Pt monolayer?
Response: Figure 5 has been modified according to the reviewer’s suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper was not modified according to indications given. Therefore the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The second revision assured the reviewer how uneasy is to share information among scientists that works in similar field and how just the “professional English language editing service” does not help. Sure, the authors improved some points that have been mention in the first review. However, the reader (presuming only as educated as the reviewer) can hardly get idea why Sample1, Sample 2, and Sample 3 are mentioned in Table 1. Is it repeatability of the experiments? Is it repeatability of the catalyst preparation method? If yes, this should have been mention somewhere. There are many of similar questions and uncertainties in the manuscript. The authors basically found that they can deposit high loadings of Pt (7-10 times more that it is in a commercial catalyst), this Pt is as active as the Pt in commercial catalyst and so the authors can reduce the volume of a catalytic unit (by 7-10 fold). Why not. My personal recommendation is to significantly reduce the length of the manuscript to focus on just the fundamental things. Therefore, major revision was suggested.
Reviewer 3 Report
The Reviewer accepts several responses of the Authors, however, corrections are not significant. The BET surface measurements were not discussed in response to the reviewer or performed, although according to the Authors "The purpose of this study is to develop a highly efficient Pt catalyst with a large effective surface area (...)". XRD measurements should also be made for better characterization of catalyst, and moreover it might be useful to search a correlation between a Pt plane and adsorption performance. Any evidence of uniform material coverage should be demonstrated. The quality and presentation of graphic data still require special attention. e.g. part of the scale in Figure 5 goes beyond the image cast and the scale addition is not appropriate (similar Fig. 6). If the Authors are not able to take care of the graphic side of the published article, it unambiguously forces the article to be rejected in such a highly IF journal as Catalyst.