Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript submitted here describes the development of a preparation method for a catalyst for the decomposition of 1,2-dichloroethane. This topic is not one of my areas of expertise, but as a reviewer I would like to evaluate the detailed structural characterisation of the catalyst. The authors use a variety of methods to find out how the different catalyst materials work. The analyses are precise and give the paper the necessary depth. Nevertheless, the reader would like the Conclusion to be not just a summary, but a short and concise discussion with important conclusions.

In the introductions, the significance of the work should also be better elaborated. What is the advantage of the new catalyst material and to what extent do the authors want to distinguish themselves from other works. The general question should be clarified, what contribution does this manuscript make in the development of catalysts for the decomposition of 1,2-dichloroethane.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The referee has read the paper with much interest. It presents a valuable contribution to the corresponding field. Rich physicochemical characterization is provided, together with activity data and proposed mechanism. The manuscript is well organized, clearly written, the tables and figures are clearly and the conclusions are supported by the provided data.

minor comments

• pls provide a quantitative distribution of all the main products and by products.
• add a figure or extra axis with various selectivities
• which are the active species and what's the main role of ceria taking into account the number of oxygen vacancies
• post mortem analysis is missing.
• XPS analysis should also focus on chloride species that might be present on the surface.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc