Experimental Volumetric Hydrogen Uptake Determination at 77 K of Commercially Available Metal-Organic Framework Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript entitled “Experimental volumetric hydrogen uptake determination at 2 cryogenic temperature of commercially available Metal- 3 Organic Framework materials” presented by “Jose A. Villajos”. The results are interesting and the manuscript is well-presented. Therefore, I recommend to be published after minor revisions

Comments:

1. The author should provide the county name and detail of the institute and ZIP code.
2. The XRD patterns are confusing. Please modify it with different color.
3. Doses only the surface area is responsible for the hydrogen uptake capability? Basically, MOFs possess different pore size and pore volume, don’t they affect the adsorption rate of hydrogen? Author should justify?
4. Please refer the recently published research articles based on MOFs and incorporate them in the proper places

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.8b01607 and https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26164948  

5. In supporting information, Manuscript title and other details are missing.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author studied the hydrogen uptake of several MOFs materials at high pressures and characterized the materials using tools including PXRD, N2 and H2 adsorption test. The author  concluded that HKUST-1, PCN-250(Fe), and MOF-177 are the most promising commercially available MOFs for volumetric hydrogen storage. Overall, the writing is clear. The following issues need to be addressed before publication:

1. The title using cryogenic temperature is vague. The author need to specify the exact temperature.
2. The abstract over 320 words is too much and needs to condense.
3. Fig. 2 should have colored lines.
4. Line 162-164: The result that UIO-67 loses crystal phase is questionable and the authors’ explanation did make much sense. This also contradicts to the claim in the conclusion part. Why this did not happen for other MOFs?
5. Fig. 4 &6: it is impossible to tell which curve is adsorption and which curve is desorption. The symbols shall be different.
6. Fig. 4: can the author explain why excess H2 uptake first increase and then decrease over pressures?
7. Line 42: de/sorption kinetic: incorrect spelling.
8. Line 45-51：a sentence like this long is difficult for readers to understand the meaning.

Author Response

please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf