Structure and Microchannel Catalytic Bed Performance of Silver Thin Films Prepared by Electroplating
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled Structure and Microchannel Catalytic Bed Performance of Silver Thin Films Prepared by Electroplating reports the thorough and extensive research of the preparation? Characterization and catalytic activity and characterization of the silver thin film on nickel support.
The authors conducted the comprehensive study. Using Experiment Design approach, the authors have shown the dependence of the silver thin film catalyst morphology and structure on its preparation conditions. The obtained quantitative parameters of this dependence allow to evaluate objectively, again quantitatively, silver thin film catalyst in the catalytic hydrogen peroxide decomposition. As well as to adjust the catalytic activity for a reaction process.
The experimental evidence given is adequate and exhaustive. The conclusions drawn from the study are consistent with the evidence presented and meet the main purpose of the manuscript.
The manuscript has been written clearly and logically, and is well structured.
I believe the article published will be interesting for the readers of the Journal and can be published in its current form.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript (ID: catalysts-2740318). and for giving a very valuable comment.Over the past few days, we have carefully considered these comments and highlighted the corresponding revisions with a yellow background in the revised manuscript. Thank you again for considering the possible publication of our manuscript. |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes |
There were deficiencies, so the introduction was revised |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes |
Some references were added, and the missing parts of the references were completed. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
The principle of electroplating and the equation of catalytic decomposition reaction are supplemented |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes |
The product information of the agent and device was completed, and the experimental conditions were improved |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes |
The parameters and systematic descriptions of the experimental results section are completed. |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes |
The conclusions of the experiment were refined |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: The experimental evidence given is adequate and exhaustive. The conclusions drawn from the study are consistent with the evidence presented and meet the main purpose of the manuscript. The manuscript has been written clearly and logically, and is well structured. |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. In this paper, silver films were prepared on nickel substrates by electroplating as substrate materials for microchannel catalytic beds to accelerate the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide reaction solutions. In addition, the microchannel catalytic bed of this silver film was sealed in the microfluidic chip channel, and the reaction rate of the catalytic decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide reaction solution in the microflow state was determined. The reaction rate of catalytic decomposition of different microchannel catalytic beds was analyzed by regression, and a regression model was obtained for the change of the reaction rate of catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide by the surface structure parameters of silver film. There are still linguistic and structural deficiencies in this paper, and we have revised them. Some changes have been made in yellow in the text, and I hope you will criticize and advise. Thanks again! |
||
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Structure and micro channel catalytic bed performance of silver thin films prepared by electroplating.
Summary: The work of Ruiqi Shen and coworkers deals with the fabrication of silver thin film by electroplating technique. The thins films of silver were used for the catalytic decomposition of H2O2 in the micro channel catalytic bed. . The rate of catalytic decomposition of H2O2 is monitored using a microfluidic chip. The results showed that the conditions of electroplating have profound effect on the rate of decomposition of H2O2. The material has applications in devices such as micro-nanosatellites. Owing to the originality and usefulness of results the work of Ruiqi Shen and coworkers is recommended for publication in “Catalysts” after minor revision. The issues mentioned in bold need to be focused.
The following issues may kindly be considered by the authors while revising the manuscript.
1. The catalytic and electrochemical reactions involved in the decomposition of H2O2 and the electroplating of Ag on the thin films respectively and the reactions involved in the detection of H2O2 can be shown schematically.
2. In line 15, the parameter, namely, the ratio of surface area to area of silver film is unclear. The surface area of what?
3. In line 256, What is “hydroxide reaction”? Please show schematically.
4. In line 159, reference to the analytical method used for the determination of H2O2 needs to be provided.
5. English language needs improvement. In addition the following revision can be made.
|
Line number
|
Minor revision comments |
|
19 |
Rewrite the sentence “Moreover ……..current intensity (I).” as “The catalytic performance of the micro channel catalytic bed of silver thin film was greatly influenced by the conditions of electroplating, namely, the electroplating temperature (T), time (t) and current (I).”
|
|
21 |
“I=0.3mA” to be written as “I = 0.3 mA” Proper spacing need to be given between numbers and units
|
|
21 |
“t=180s” to be written as “t = 180 s”
|
|
21 |
Replace “has” with “yielded”
|
|
24 |
Replace “important reference value” with “the best process parameters”
|
|
35 |
Insert space between “text” and “numbers” “bed[5].” to be written as “bed [5].”
|
|
191 |
“x1” to be written as “x1” Similar changes to be made where ever needed
|
|
191 |
“x11” to be written properly using equation tool
|
|
193 |
Why “I” is called “current intensity”? Why not “current”?
|
|
191 |
Table 1: Note “T” is used to represent both temperature and time; Correction is required
|
|
184, 185 |
Space should be provided between “numbers” and “units”
|
|
201 |
Delete “Testing”
|
|
218 |
Add “(a)” after “micro channel catalytic bed” Likewise, add “(b)” after “the catalytic bed”
|
|
218 |
Figure 2 (b): What does the “yellow” and “purple” colours represent. Specify in the figure caption.
|
|
260, 153 |
The sections on “Results and discussion” and “Experimental” to be exchanged; ““Results and discussion” to precede “Experimental”
|
|
153 |
Remove “Plan and steps” Why murder when cards can do?
|
|
529 |
Insert space between “current” and “(mA)”
|
|
530 |
Replace “ml” with “mL”
|
|
532 |
The parameter “a” namely, “ratio of surface area to area” is unclear
|
|
4 and 540 |
Should there be a space between “Ruiqi” and “Shen”
|
|
256 |
Replace “catalizing” with “catalyzing”
|
|
550-633 |
Why the reference numbers were repeated?
|
|
560, 564, 569, 572, 576, 578, 587, 591, 601, 618, 629
|
Incomplete reference
|
|
614 |
Delete “:A publication of the American Chemical society.”
|
|
564 |
Journal name missing
|
|
580 |
Page number range repeated
|
|
103 |
Add “on” before “thin films”
|
|
116 |
Replace “have” with “microfluidics”
|
|
121 |
Replace “microfluidic” with “has”
|
|
140 |
Replace “over emphasized” with “neglected”
|
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language needs improvement
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Structure and Microchannel Catalytic Bed Performance of Silver Thin Films Prepared by Electroplating”(ID: catalysts-2740318).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion have been marked using the highlight in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the point-by-point responses to the Referees comments are as following: |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes |
There were deficiencies, so the introduction was revised |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes |
Some references were added, and the missing parts of the references were completed. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
The principle of electroplating and the equation of catalytic decomposition reaction are supplemented |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes |
The product information of the agent and device was completed, and the experimental conditions were improved |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes |
The parameters and systematic descriptions of the experimental results section are completed. |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes |
The conclusions of the experiment were refined |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: The catalytic and electrochemical reactions involved in the decomposition of H2O2 and the electroplating of Ag on the thin films respectively and the reactions involved in the detection of H2O2 can be shown schematically. Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the electrode reaction equation of electroplating and the chemical equation of hydrogen peroxide decomposition under the action of catalyst silver to the electroplating device diagram and chip fabrication flow diagram, respectively. The electrode reaction formula for electroplating shown in Figure 5 on page 12 and the chemical reaction formula for hydrogen peroxide-catalyzed decomposition shown in Figure 7 on page 14. |
||
|
|
||
|
Comments 2: . In line 15, the parameter, namely, the ratio of surface area to area of silver film is unclear. The surface area of what? |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The surface area mentioned in this article refers to the actual area of the catalyst surface. Whereas, the area refers to the projected area of the catalyst on the catalyst datum. Therefore, we explain the ratio of surface area to area in section 2.2 on page 6 and the glossary on page 17 for surface area and area. Comments 3: In line 256, What is “hydroxide reaction”? Please show schematically Response 3: Thanks for the comment! The word "hydroxide reaction" should be replaced by "hydrogen peroxide reaction", so on page 15 of the original text, it was changed to “Equation (9) is applied to calculate the reaction rate of catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide reaction in the microchannel catalyst bed of a silver thin film.” Comments 4: In line 159, reference to the analytical method used for the determination of H2O2 needs to be provided. Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out, so we have added a reference to the indirect determination of hydrogen peroxide concentration by spectroscopy so that readers can easily consult the analytical methods for the determination of hydrogen peroxide concentration. As shown in section 3.1 on page 11.
Comments 5: English language needs improvement. In addition the following revision can be made. Response 5: Thank you for your very good advice, English expression skills need to be further improved, so I seriously revised your language comments, and also specially found a professional language teacher to revise the paper, and I also made corresponding revisions to it. Later, I would like to get the language service of the journal to improve my language. |
||
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Structure and Microchannel Catalytic Bed Performance of Silver Thin Films Prepared by Electroplating” deals with the effect of several properties of silver thin films, produced applying different synthesis conditions, on the hydrogen peroxide catalytic decomposition. The silver films were produced in a CS electrochemical workstation following a sustainable cyanide-free method and placed in a microchannel chip for testing. The synthesis conditions studied were current intensity, electroplating time and temperature with effect on silver films average particle size, silver content, thickness, surface roughness, surface area to area ratio on the hydrogen peroxide decomposition reaction. The manuscript describes an important amount of work but there are significant points missing that a research work should reflect for publication:
The English used should be clear and not superfluous or repetitive that make difficult to follow the ideas described. This happens in paragraphs of introduction 2, 3 and 6 regarding the interest of application of catalysts in the process. There is sometimes ambiguity such as page 3 line 150, the reaction is silver decomposition or hydrogen peroxide decomposition? Systematic description of results such as pages 9, 10 and 15 should be summarized.
It is not possible to reproduce the research describe in the manuscript since some techniques applied and instruments used are not described such as the SEM, EDS or confocal microscope used or data treatment used to obtain results of thickness, surface roughness or surface area to area ratio. How are these properties defined?
In the manuscript there is only a section to describe results but it does not include discussion of the results comparing to literature of to offer explanations of them.
The application of the quadratic regression is not explained neither any parameter related to fitting accuracy.
There are some inaccuracies such as page 9 line 272 “𝑋2𝑋3 has an extremely significant 272 impact on the regression equation” but this term is not in equation 3.
There is some confusion of units in page 13, lines 393, 396, etc.
The quality of figure 7 and 8 is low. The fitting quality of figure 8 is not included.
Some acronyms are not described such as CS work station and MEMS process
To sum up, this manuscript is not of sufficient quality to be published in Catalysts
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English used should be clear and not superfluous or repetitive that make difficult to follow the ideas described. This happens in paragraphs of introduction 2, 3 and 6 regarding the interest of application of catalysts in the process. There is sometimes ambiguity such as page 3 line 150, the reaction is silver decomposition or hydrogen peroxide decomposition? Systematic description of results such as pages 9, 10 and 15 should be summarized.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These comments help to improve the academic rigor of our articles. Based on your suggestions and requirements, we have made revisions to the manuscript. At the same time, the manuscript has been reviewed and edited by the journal's language services. We hope that our work can be improved again. In addition, we would like to show the following details: |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Must be improved |
There were deficiencies, so the introduction was revised |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Must be improved |
Some references were added, and the missing parts of the references were completed. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Must be improved |
The principle of electroplating and the equation of catalytic decomposition reaction are supplemented |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Must be improved |
The product information of the agent and device was completed, and the experimental conditions were improved |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Must be improved |
The parameters and systematic descriptions of the experimental results section are completed. |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Must be improved |
The conclusions of the experiment were refined |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: The English used should be clear and not superfluous or repetitive that make difficult to follow the ideas described. This happens in paragraphs of introduction 2, 3 and 6 regarding the interest of application of catalysts in the process. There is sometimes ambiguity such as page 3 line 150, the reaction is silver decomposition or hydrogen peroxide decomposition? Systematic description of results such as pages 9, 10 and 15 should be summarized. Response 1: Thank you for this valuable comment. I agree with you, so we have carefully re-read paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of the introduction on page 2 to avoid repetition of unclear statements. And the corresponding section has been modified according to your comments. Among them, the reaction of the third stage of 150 lines should be a hydrogen peroxide decomposition reaction rather than a silver decomposition reaction. And on pages 7, 9, and 10, systematic representation has been added.
Comments 2: It is not possible to reproduce the research describe in the manuscript since some techniques applied and instruments used are not described such as the SEM, EDS or confocal microscope used or data treatment used to obtain results of thickness, surface roughness or surface area to area ratio. How are these properties defined? Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Agree with you, and the model of the test setup and the conditions for testing have been added in section 3.1 of the experimental section. The process of obtaining the experimental indicators is also described in section 2.1 on page 4, section 2.2 on page 5, section 2.3 on page 6 and section 2.4 on page 9, respectively, and the subsequent data processing section is explained. Comments 3: In the manuscript there is only a section to describe results but it does not include discussion of the results comparing to literature of to offer explanations of them. Response 3：Thank you for this valuable comment. Because the microfluidic chip device and test system I have made to catalyze the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide in the microchannel catalytic bed system of silver membrane are different from the previous devices and test systems made by others, it is difficult to compare with other systems made by other researchers. But based on your opinion, I deliberately made some superficial comparisons in the article. Comments 4: The application of the quadratic regression is not explained neither any parameter related to fitting accuracy. Response 4: Thank you for this valuable comment.The fitting accuracy of regression orthogonal analysis is usually evaluated by p-value. When the p-value is less than 0.05, it represents "falling into the rejection domain", that is, the stronger the overall regression relation. Therefore, we have added a label for the p-value near the regression equation. The fitting p-value of the quadratic orthogonal regression equation and the p-value of the misfitting test are noted on pages 4, 5, 6 and 7. Comments 5 There are some inaccuracies such as page 9 line 272 “?2?3 has an extremely significant 272 impact on the regression equation” but this term is not in equation 3. Response 5: Thank you for this valuable comment. Agree with you. Because the parameter that determines whether the influence of the factor is significant is the p-value. When P>0.05, it indicates that the effect of this factor is not significant. When 0.01<p<0.05, it means that the influence of this factor is significant. When p<0.01, the influence of this factor is extremely significant. Therefore, we have added the annotation of the p-value in the corresponding position. On page 5, a note has been added to each item of P for easy reference. Comments 6: There is some confusion of units in page 13, lines 393, 396, etc. Response 6: Thank you for your valuable comments. Agree with you. Therefore, I have recalibrated these units to avoid misunderstandings. Corrections are made in these paragraphs on page 10. Comments 7: The quality of figure 7 and 8 is low. The fitting quality of figure 8 is not included. Response 7：Thank you for this valuable comment. Agree with you. Therefore, four sets of parallel experiments were redone, and they were statistically analyzed, and the mean and error of each set of data were obtained. Finally, the error bar analysis of each group of experimental values was increased by using origin. These changes can be consulted in Figure 3 on page 8 and Figure 4 on page 9, respectively. Comments 8: Some acronyms are not described such as CS work station and MEMS process |
||
|
Response 8: Thank you for your valuable comments. Agree with you. That's why we've added these abbreviations to the glossary. Their explanations have been added in the Glossary section on page 17.
|
||
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee report:
Manuscript ID: Catalysts-2740318 R1
Title: Structure and micro channel catalytic bed performance of silver thin films prepared by electroplating.
Authors: Yong Yang, Yinghua Ye and Ruiqi Shen*
Summary: The work of Ruiqi Shen and coworkers deals with the fabrication of silver thin film by electroplating technique. The thin films of silver were used for the catalytic decomposition of H2O2 in the micro channel catalytic bed. The rate of catalytic decomposition of H2O2 is monitored using a microfluidic chip. The results showed that the conditions of electroplating have profound effect on the rate of decomposition of H2O2. The material has applications in devices such as micro-nanosatellites. The authors have addressed the concerns of the referee in the revised manuscript. Owing to the originality and usefulness of results the work of Ruiqi Shen and coworkers is recommended for publication in “Catalysts”.
Author Response
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript entitled: "Structure and Microchannel Catalytic Bed Performance of Silver Thin Films Prepared by Electroplating" (ID: catalysts-2740318). And gave a very valuable positive opinion. Over the past few days, we have continued to scrutinize the content of this essay and have highlighted the corresponding revisions in the revised manuscript with a red background. Thank you again for your positive comments about the publication of this paper. |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes |
There are some presentation problems, which will be corrected in the paper |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes |
The references cited in the paper are carefully selected and are relevant literature that has been carefully read before |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes |
Some of the formulations have some problems and will be corrected in the text |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes |
There are some problems with the formulation of the method parameters, which will be fixed in the text |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes |
Some of the previous content expressions are missing and irregular, which will be supplemented in the text |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes |
There are some deficiencies in the conclusions, which will be completed this time |
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the revision of the manuscript “Structure and Microchannel Catalytic Bed Performance of Silver Thin Films Prepared by Electroplating” the authors introduced some changes regarding the comments raised by the reviewers. However, there is no discussion of the results which is not about “some superficial comparisons” but comparison with literature on different technologies used for the reaction studied to understand the improvement of your device, catalyst, kinetics, energy applied and why your device is working in such a way. For this reason, I can not support the publication of this manuscript in Catalysts.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe are some systematic descriptions that should be rewritten to allow a better understanding of whole interaction of different parameters. In addition, some writing is still too skematic "Use the excel Solver function to predict..."
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you for reviewing our paper, and we are actively taking your comments on our article titled "Structure and Microchannel Catalytic Bed Performance of Silver Films Prepared by Plating" (ID: catalysts-2740318). These evaluations will be of high value to the revision and improvement of our papers, and will have important guiding significance for future research. We have carefully studied the comments and made corrections in the hope of receiving your criticism and corrections. The revised sections have been marked with the red highlight in the text. Thank you again for your evaluation of our paper and will respond positively to your comments. |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Can be improved |
There are some presentation problems, which will be corrected in the paper |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Must be improved |
The references cited in the paper are carefully selected and are relevant literature that has been carefully read before |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Can be improved |
Some of the formulations have some problems and will be corrected in the text |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Can be improved |
There are some problems with the formulation of the method parameters, which will be fixed in the text |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Can be improved |
Some of the previous content expressions are missing and irregular, which will be supplemented in the text |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Must be improved |
There are some deficiencies in the conclusions, which will be completed this time |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: there is no discussion of the results which is not about “some superficial comparisons” but comparison with literature on different technologies used for the reaction studied to understand the improvement of your device, catalyst, kinetics, energy applied and why your device is working in such a way.
|
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Since the performance of the catalyst has an important impact on the performance of the micro-nano satellite microthruster, and the flow state and thermal effect of the fluid under the micro-scale condition have an extremely important impact on the performance of the microchannel catalytic bed. The structure and material of the microfluidic catalytic chip used in this paper are somewhat different from those of other researchers, and some inappropriate conclusions may be drawn if compared with them. Therefore, it is difficult to correct the problem you mentioned in this article. However, we are studying the preparation of microchannel catalytic beds for different systems, and testing the same catalytic decomposition reaction rate, such as the use of some composite films containing silver and catalytic beds with different microchannel shapes. These will be done in a follow-up study. We hope to communicate with you in the future.
Comments 2: The are some systematic descriptions that should be rewritten to allow a better understanding of whole interaction of different parameters. In addition, some writing is still too skematic "Use the excel Solver function to predict..."
Response 2: Thank you for your very good advice, English expression skills need to be further improved, This question you raised is corrected in the article. For example, part 2.1 on page 4 and part 2.2 on page 5 and part 2.3 on page 7. In addition to these, a number of other errors in presentation are marked with a red background. Hope to get your approval. |
||
