Next Article in Journal
Synchrotron Characterization of Hexagonal and Cubic Lipidic Phases Loaded with Azolate/Phosphane Gold(I) Compounds: A New Approach to the Uploading of Gold(I)-Based Drugs
Next Article in Special Issue
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Removal from Indoor Air by Heterostructures/Composites/Doped Photocatalysts: A Mini-Review
Previous Article in Journal
SERS-Active Pattern in Silver-Ion-Exchanged Glass Drawn by Infrared Nanosecond Laser
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

[email protected]/C with Controllable Pd Dispersion as a Highly Efficient Catalyst for Hydrogen Evolution from Ammonia Borane

Nanomaterials 2020, 10(9), 1850; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10091850
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Nanomaterials 2020, 10(9), 1850; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10091850
Received: 19 August 2020 / Revised: 11 September 2020 / Accepted: 14 September 2020 / Published: 16 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers in Metal Nanoparticles for Heterogeneous Catalysis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Author reported [email protected]/C (via galvanic reduction method) showed good Hydrogen evolution over PdCu/C via impregnation method. The results are quite interesting. It will be great if author provide a table with best materials for hydrogen evolution from ammonia Borane and see where this catalyst stands. I also some ambiguity of the XPS spectral analysis of Pd in figure 4. I would prefer to see a clear peak but they are almost not perfect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study, which enriches the scientific knowledge in terms of catalytic sites size control. Although some of the results are rather expected (increased oxidation of Cu over amount of O2 used) the study is sound and the data might be useful for researchers in the same area or even for extending the idea to other systems. I propose publishing this work, but some significant changes are required:

  1. The abstract is rather difficult to follow at the first reading. One must go to the content in order to understand the meaning of the different names used. I suggest presenting an introductory sentence explaining the symbolism.
  2. Reproducibility of the testing is completely missing. We have no clues about the systematic error of the testing. Without this kind of information the conclusions, although seeming fully supported by the observed differences, they cannot be statistically validated.
  3. In Figures 5 and 7, the authors use lines to link the points. Since there is no mathematical model, the use of lines is misleading and pointless. The differentiation of the points using geometric symbols and colours is sufficient.
  4. Although the instrumental analysis of the catalytic formulation is good and informative, there are no similar analyses on used catalysts. Why?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All questions and suggestions have been taken into account satisfactorily. I recomment publishing this manuscript

Back to TopTop