Rational Design of Ce–Ni Bimetallic MOF-Derived Nanocatalysts for Enhanced Hydrogenation of Dicyclopentadiene

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is devoted to the current topic of the development of effective ni-containing catalysts for the hydrogenation and is of great interest to researchers. Before recommending the publication of an article, the authors should make a number of corrections and clarifications.

1. It is necessary to provide a comparative table on the catalytic properties of the catalysts known from the literature and obtained in this work.
2. It is not entirely clear in the description of the synthesis of catalysts why the authors designate the catalysts as CexNiy-MOF-808, when after they write that x=3, y=7. Why is this ratio of Ni and Ce chosen? Why didn't the authors change the ratio during the synthesis of the catalysts?
3. Figure 4. (a) should not be inserted as a drawing, as it is of poor quality. The Y-axis in Figures 4, 5 and 7 must be reduced to a value of 100.
4. The authors should include the results of the H2-TPR in order to evaluate the reducibility of the samples and the interaction of metals.
5. The authors should add the intended reaction mechanism.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and constructive comments on our manuscript (catalyst-3772706) . These comments are valuable and helpful in improving our article. According to the your comments, we have tried our best to modify our manuscript to satisfy the requirements of Catalysts. We have listed the responses and revisions to the recommendations in our response file. Additionally, We have enclosed a red-marked-up version of the manuscript for your perusal.
Best regards,
Hongyi Gao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper can be a good addition to the literature about Ni-based materials. I will recommend it for publication after the following points have been addressed:

• The EDS map for Ni in Fig 3 is poor and noise. It has to be replaced, as only background noise is visible. Consider adding the EDS spectra or EELS to show the presence of Ni.
• How does Ni/CeO2 compares to other classic catalysts, or Ni/C for instance? What are the common degradation /deactivation mechanisms that could be expected with this catalyst? Can the authors show the agglomeration of Ni in post-catalysis samples?
• I had a hard time to understand the analysis of the XPS data at the end. It needs more clarity. Labelling needs to be improved (write clearly which XPS data is before and after catalysis). Was the Ni more reduced after the reaction? The authors mention that Ce may play a role but I assume that the reaction environment is responsible for potential changes in the Ni valence state...

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and constructive comments on our manuscript (catalyst-3772706) . These comments are valuable and helpful in improving our article. According to the your comments, we have tried our best to modify our manuscript to satisfy the requirements of Catalysts. We have listed the responses and revisions to the recommendations in our response file. Additionally, We have enclosed a red-marked-up version of the manuscript for your perusal.
Best regards,
Hongyi Gao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took into account the comments and improved the manuscript. I recommend that you accept it for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be published