A New Approach to the Preparation of Stable Oxide-Composite Cobalt–Samarium Catalysts for the Production of Hydrogen by Dry Reforming of Methane
, V. A. Arkhipova 2, M. A. Bykov 3, A. A. Sadovnikov 1, K. A. Cherednichenko 2 and G. A. Shandryuk 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entlited “A New Approach to the Preparation of Stable Oxide-Composite Cobalt-Samarium Catalysts for the Production of Hydrogen by Dry Reforming of Methane” reports a very interesting and simple technique to produce a precursos of a catalys used to dry reforming of methane.
Some comments to improve the manuscript are suggested as follow.
1. The Section "Introduction" is too long. Part of the text of this section should be transferred to the Section "Results and Discussion". the text between lines from 117 to 155 must be summarized and moved to the previous cited section.
2. Authors should avoid using personal pronouns like we throughout the text.
3. Figures 1 and 8 must be improved since it is difficult to read the legends and axes.
4. In Figures 4 to 7 the authors must no to use solid lines to represent the compositions, only symbols.
5. The text along the Lines 311 to 379 is repetitive. The authors must to merged them in one paragraph pointing the results. In the next paragraph a robust explanation on the differences among the results must be presented.
6. The Section conclusion must be summarized deleting the results reported.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
There are many repeated expressions, and the authors should simply it.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My comments on the paper:
1. The conclusion of the authors about the occurrence of the reverse reaction of water gas shift (6) as the main side process for the target reaction of dry methane reforming (3) is not very clear from the presented data. Is there any additional evidence for this assumption other than the small difference in CO2 and methane conversions (Figure 5-7). And what explains the greatest contribution of this process for a catalyst containing 5% Co?
2. It is indicated in the experimental that the complete composition of the reaction products, including hydrocarbons, was carried out. However, the composition of the products is not reported in the results of the work.
3. Was there any estimate of the water formed by reaction (6)?
4. There are too many same-type figures in the article, some of which are better transferred to supplementary materials.
Author Response
See attachef file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors should provide the catalytic performances of Co/Sm2O3 with the loading amount of Co below 2% as the control experiment.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we attach our response to Your comment in the attached file.
Best regards!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
