Catalytic-Level Identification of Prepared Pt/HY, Pt-Zn/HY, and Pt-Rh/HY Nanocatalysts on the Reforming Reactions of N-Heptane

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents the results of experimental research on the suitability of two new bimetallic nanocatalysts of Pt-Zn/HY and Pt-Rh/HY for the heptane catalytic reforming process. Bimetallic nanocatalysts were synthesized by the authors and their effectiveness was compared with monometallic nanocatalysts. The paper presents a comparison of the activity of the catalysts, the degree of conversion of n-Heptane and the selectivity of the catalysts. A chemical reaction mechanism has also been proposed. In my opinion, the work is well written and contains an element of scientific novelty (new catalysts). For the reasons mentioned above, it can be published in Processes. However, before publication, I suggest that authors make some corrections.

1. Page 3, line 105, “zinc chloride (NaAlO2)” The chemical formula needs to be improved.

2. Page 4, lines 171-173, “Additionally, to assure the validity of the measurements, all were evaluated twice. Also, an error evaluation was estimated on many parameters by employing statistical evaluation methods.” The Authors should provide more details on the statistical analysis of the results. What was calculated? Standard deviation, confidence intervals…?

3. Page 6, lines 200-202, “The mean average of the 200 particle size of the synthesized Y-zeolite was about 48 nm, with a spherical and uniform shape.” What average was used? Arithmetic average, Sauter mean diameter, de Brouckere mean diameter?

4. Page 6, Table 3, The sum of the mass concentrations is 102.96%. Please explain this at work.

5. Page 11, lines 371-374, “Accordingly, the comprising of the present study results with the results of other authors such as Keshavarz and Salabat [36] and Sukkar [38], and Singh et al. [42], it was observed that the prepared Pt-Zn/HY nanocatalyst showed high performance toward n-heptane catalytic reforming reaction.” In my opinion, the Authors should develop this part of the work.

Author Response

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1  

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your effort in reviewing our manuscript. Fortunately, we have corrected the manuscript according to your useful comments. All the items that you mentioned are corrected and can be seen as blue text in the manuscript to facilitate the review process. Finally, we highly appreciate your notes as they allowed us to appropriately upgrade our manuscript. Please see the attachment file that includes all details about the reviewer notes.

Thank you with best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The operation of reforming catalysts in a fixed bed reactor may undergo a high level of the interaction between the operating parameters and the reaction mechanism, which might well reduce the catalyst deactivation rate. This research investigated the catalytic reforming performances of three nanocatalysts (i.e., Pt/HY, Pt-Zn/HY, and Pt-Rh/HY) with n-heptane as the reactant. The results are insightful in developing new reforming nanocatalysts for the production of high octane number gasolines. The paper is advised to be accepted for publication after the following concerns are addressed.

 1. Chlorinated alumina is presently a more general support for commercial reforming catalysts. Please explain to the readers why you choose to use HY as the support instead, i.e. the advantages and disadvantages of HY as the support.

2. Selectivity is advised to be defined in the experimental part.

3. Figure 9 may show general catalytic reforming reactions of naphtha distillate, but is not logically enough to show the reforming reactions of heptane molecule.

4. Would you indicate the yield values for a typical conversion in Figure 10?

Author Response

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your effort in reviewing our manuscript. Fortunately, we have corrected the manuscript according to your useful comments. All the items that you mentioned are corrected and can be seen as red text in the manuscript to facilitate the review process. Finally, we highly appreciate your notes as they allowed us to appropriately upgrade our manuscript. Please see the attachment file that includes the author's response to the reviewer's notes.

Thank you with best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf