Preparation and Performance of Cerium-Based Catalysts for Selective Catalytic Reduction of Nitrogen Oxides: A Critical Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All of my corrections are present in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript “Preparation and performance of Cerium-based catalysts for Selective Catalytic Reduction of nitrogen oxides: Review” describes the use of phospholipase. As a review, this manuscript at best serve as a collection of some published work in the field. It is suggested to enhance the images resolution (Figure 15, Scheme 3). The paper can be accepted after minor revision. Please check the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting review paper addressing a very important topic. It has the potential to be published in Catalysts. However, I have the following comments that the authors should implement in the revised manuscript before publication.
1) The title should be modified to “Preparation and Performance of Cerium-Based Catalysts for Selective Catalytic Reduction of Nitrogen Oxides: A Critical Review”.
2) Introduction - In order to give a more complete picture, the authors should briefly discuss, citing pertinent literature works, the key role of ceria-based catalysts in the treatment of automobile exhausts also with reference to the abatement of particulate matter: AIChE Journal, Volume 63, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 3442-3449; Topics in Catalysis (in press), doi: 10.1007/s11244-020-01384-y.
3) I believe that the authors should write
“Figure 5. Proposed NH3-SCR reaction mechanism over CeaTi1-a catalysts [37].”
instead of
“Scheme 1. Proposed NH3-SCR reaction mechanism over CeaTi1-a catalysts [37].”
The same holds for Schemes 2-5.
4) Conclusion and prospect - This section should be renamed “Conclusions and Perspectives”. It is the weak point of this manuscript, being too short. Thus, it should be significantly expanded. In particular, main perspectives in the field should be discussed in detail.
I'm willing to review the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
CeO2-based catalysts is an important group of catalysts for NH3-SCR. So overall there is room for this review to summarize this field. Overall, this review provides a practical guidance to this area. However, I feel that there are still a lot of details missing. Especially when the authors discuss the reaction rate and the reaction mechanism, there should be more accurate data and more detailed discussion. In particular, I have the following specific comments:
- For all the figures from the literature, the authors should obtain the copyright from the journal and indicate that figures are reproduced from the literature with permission.
- Fig. 1: in the caption, the authors should clarify the full name of SG, IM and CP. Also, it is good to show the SCR reactivities of these 3 catalysts in the figure.
- Page 2. In ref 39, besides rutile TiO2, what were the other TiO2 supports studied? This should be clearly presented.
- The explanation of the scheme one is not clear. Why the L-H dominates and which pathway? What is the difference in energy barriers?
- For the CeO2-MOx in section 2.3, what is the general rule of selection? Also which one shows better SCR performance? This part is not clear.
- In figure 10, I don’t see how the acid site are enhanced by W? There should be more detail on this.
- Besides the traditional mix-metal oxide catalyst, the single-atom catalysts have also showed great potential in the NH3-SCR. Adding a second late-transition metal into CeO2-based catalyst as single atom could have great potential in the field. A good reference can be found at (doi: 10.1002/cnma.202000407; doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123413).
- The introduction needs some work. Should be more general. Also needs some work about the language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My corrections and suggestions after the first review of the manuscript are included in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us a lot positive and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Preparation and Performance of Cerium-Based catalysts for Selective Catalytic Reduction of Nitrogen Oxides: A Critical Review”.
We have studied the comments carefully and have made revision marked in red in the revised paper. We have tried our best to modify our manuscript according to the comments. The point-by-point responses to the reviewer’s comments are also submitted.
We would like to express our great gratitude to you for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Xue Bian
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my comments in a satisfactory manner. Overall, the manuscript has been improved after revisions. Therefore, it can be accepted for publication in Catalysts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have addressed my comments properly. So I recommend publication of this review article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
