A Review of Synergistic Catalytic Removal of Nitrogen Oxides and Chlorobenzene from Waste Incinerators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated the synergistic effect of catalyst components on the activity for NOx and chlorobenzene, simultaneously. As a review article, the present MS well consist of appropriate explanations based upon the results in references. Some of minor comments are below.
L46: Any reference for the new regulations? Also, please provide the emission standards of EU and US (or other representative country) for the emission of NOx and dioxins.
L68: Please describe the meaning of “C-O”.
L85: Any reference for the use of chlorobenzene in experiments to replace dioxins?
L207: Characteristics of acid sites including Lewis and Bronsted should be separately explain somewhere of MS.
Table 2 and Table 3: Since H2O is always included in the exhausts of the combustions, the catalytic activities in the references should be discussed over the MS with the results obtained under the reaction condition including H2O. Or the authors should make another chapter for the effect of H2O (and/or with other self poisoning) on the activity somewhere of the MS.
L297: Please explain how Al2O3 or SiO2 improve the property of TiO2 as a carrier component.
L346: Any reference that V2O5-MoO3/TiO2 is currently the best medium and high-temperature SCR catalyst?
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewer for the valuable advice and questions. We have revised our paper thoroughly following the comments, and the detailed response is presented as follows. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If the revision is unsatisfactory or the reviewers have any other doubts and suggestions, please inform us and we are glad to further improve our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript with a title of “A Review of Synergistic Catalytic Removal of Nitrogen Oxide and Chlorobenzene from Waste Incinerators” summarized the recent research progress regarding synergistic catalytic removal of nitrogen oxide and chlorobenzene through various catalysts classified, mechanism, catalysts deactivation, and develop trend. This review was well-organized with a logicality and a strong reference value. I would like to recommend accepting it in current form, without any modification and revision.
Author Response
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly. If the revision is unsatisfactory or the reviewers have any other doubts and suggestions, please inform us and we are glad to further improve our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Catalysts-1927541
I carefully reviewed this manuscript. Although there are some points to be revised, this manuscript is suitable to be published in the journal, catalysts. Although I am not specialized in the field which is described in this manuscript and am a non-English native speaker, I can receive many interesting aspects from this manuscript. In particular, I could smoothly and in “stress free” read this manuscript. However, I give some advice or comments to revise on the content of this manuscript before publication. My judgement is “minor revision”.
P1 Line 12: It is better that “Emission of the harmful gases nitrogen oxides (NOx) and dioxins” is changed to “Emission of the harmful gases, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and dioxins,”.
P1 Line 20: The abbreviation “CB” is not defined in Abstract.
P2 Line 47, “Among them” The pronoun of “them” is pointed to what?
P2 Line 58: I think this sentence should be described in present perfect form such as “current studies have found that ･･･”.
P2 Line 60: This sentence says “current studies”. Therefore, two or more references should be cited. However, only one article is cited.
P2 Line 65: I can’t understand the sentence “ten times more efficient”. I hope this sentence is changed or revised.
P2 Line 68: The abbreviation of “NSCR” is not defined.
P3 Line 78: Put these five numbers in ascending order.
P3 Line 83: This sentence is revied in the form of “it is difficult to”.
P3 Line 86-90: Is this mechanism shown in Figure 2? If it is different from Figure 2, more additional explanation is required.
P3 Line 100: unnecessary space is deleted.
P4 Line 101: The size of reaction scheme is a little small. Make it a little bigger.
P4 Line 108: I think that “considerable” is changed to “considerably”.
P4 Line 120: The space between numeral and the symbol “°C” should be deleted. The same is other cases.
P5 Line 180: I think that the term “Cl elements” is changed to “Cl components” or other.
P6 Line 215: The reference number is rearranged in in ascending order. This table is carried over the next page.
P7 Line 217&P9 Line 328: I think that “transition metal oxide-loaded catalysts” or “catalysts loaded with transition metal oxide” is better. How about the authors?
P7 Line 237: The abbreviation of “o-DCB” is not defined.
P7 Line 252: The reference number is rearranged in in ascending order.
P8 Line 287: “100 hours” is changed to “100 h”.
P8 Line 312: I think the term “Among term” is not required here.
P9 Line329: The reference number is rearranged in in ascending order.
P11 Line 403: The size of reaction scheme is a little small. Make it a little bigger.
P12 Line 421: The abbreviation of “TPD” is not defined.
P13 Line 457:Since a negative result is described, the verb “result in” is better.
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewer for the valuable advice and questions. We have revised our paper thoroughly following the comments, and the detailed response is presented as follows. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If the revision is unsatisfactory or the reviewers have any other doubts and suggestions, please inform us and we are glad to further improve our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
