24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 6416  |  回复: 15
当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖,点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

仗剑落花

金虫 (小有名气)

[交流] 三个审稿人,一个直接拒掉,两个要大修,各位看看还有戏没? 已有13人参与

审稿意见:reject&resubmit
Thank you for your submission to Green Chemistry. Please find the reviewers’ reports on your manuscript copied below. The reviewers feel that the paper is unsuitable for publication in its present form, and that substantial revisions are necessary before the paper could be reconsidered for publication. We therefore feel unable to proceed with publication at this stage.

However, we would like to encourage you to fully address the concerns of all the reviewers, in particular the concerns of referee 3 regarding the suitability for Green Chemistry, and resubmit an appropriately revised manuscript to Green Chemistry.  Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission will be subject to further peer review before a decision is reached.
I look forward to a resubmission.

Yours sincerely,
Helen


Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Referee: 1
Comments to the Author
Recommendation:
This paper cannot be accepted for publication in Green Chemistry because there is it does not provide new physical insights.
Comments:
The manuscript of authors, reports a complete work in which the preparation and characterization of catalyst samples, and a catalytic reaction, transesterification for biodiesel production, are presented. Among the catalyst properties investigated, the basicity of the surfaces, studied by CO2 probe and by a model reaction, represents the most important part of the manuscript. This is a right choice as the Zn-Al hydrotalcites are basic materials and their catalytic activity is in relation with their basicity.
Unfortunately, there is not a sufficient original approach for the publication of this manuscript in Green Chemistry, nor concerning the studied materials neither concerning the methodological approach and the reaction. The present manuscript is a good systematic work which merits to be published in another type of scientific journal.
In my opinion, it would be better to select the most basic catalyst and to deepen the study of its catalytic performances giving also quantitative kinetic evaluations of the reaction.
Details:
Strong basic surfaces can be easily covered by adsorbed carbonate species when exposed to air. For comparative purposes, have been the catalysts studied both without and with thermal treatment, made with the final aim of cleaning the surfaces ? It was possible to observe some differences in the obtained catalytic results on the carbonated surfaces and on the carbonate-free surfaces?
Nothing has been written about the carbon balance during the transesterification reaction.
The amounts of basic sites of the different catalyst samples have to be expressed in micromol per unit surface (micromol/m2) instead of micromol per unit mass (micromol/g) (see Table 4).
I cannot find Table 4 cited in the text.


Referee: 2
Comments to the Author
The authors present an interesting, well-examined study on stable heterogeneous catalysts for transesterification of soybean oil to biodiesel. The Zn-Al containing compounds are characterized in detail, the conclusions are comprehensible. Concerning the application of the catalyst, the long on-stream time is remarkable and should give reason to further investigations in regard to a scale-up.
The basis of the integration of IR band areas is not clearly explained (e.g. Table 5). For a comparison of inorganic materials with different BET surfaces the band areas denoted to adsorbed species should be related to the same BET surface, that means a division of IR band areas by BET surface. Probably it was done but it should be explained better.
Page 7, line 32-88: This paragraph is a little bit confusing. Please discuss the amount and type (bridging or terminal) of methoxy species in both dehydrated Zn-Al hydrotalcies and Zn-Al oxides abridged and more clearly.
Page 1, line 46: the number 3 has to be written with subscripted character in the formula of nitrate
A problem is the quality of English usage. There are so many mistakes that it is not possible to correct them all. A general revision is necessary, if possible, by a native speaker.


Referee: 3 - adjudicator
Comments to the Author
This manuscript reports the characterization of zinc-aluminum hydrotalcites and subsequent transesterification.  The catalysis seems anecdotal based on the amount of time spent on the application compared to the characterization.  This is unfortunate as it could be a highlight.  The catalysis should be expanded before the manuscript can be accepted.  

On the characterization, the N2 sorption needs work.  Show the isotherms and discuss the data in terms of the isotherms.  What do the isotherms look like? Does the hysteresis suggest slit-like mesopores, or some other shapes?  (see paper by Kruk and Jaroneic for more information on characterization)  The sorption data seems to contradict the methanol data where reactivity is discussed in terms of surface area (1st paragraph on p5).  Why can't methanol access surface hydroxyls in a 6 nm mesopore?  

Other issues:
1) Perform ammonia-TPD to assess the surface acidity and compare to the CO2-TPD for a better understanding of the surface chemistry.
2) Consider what tables and figures are most important and move others to Supplementary Information.  Some of the schemes, figures, and tables are not that important, especially when duplicated as Scheme 1 and Table 2 appear to be.  
3) Why was 2 hrs chosen for the calcination time?  What happens if the time is varied?
4) What was the atmosphere for the thermal analysis?  Air and nitrogen would produce different results that will result in different interpretations.  Please elaborate.
5) List the column type (C18, wax, etc) with the model.  Also consider using an internal standard such as trimethylbenzene to quantify the GC results.  
6) Draw the mechanism to assist the discussion - here is an important picture, more important than Scheme 1 in my opinion.  
7) For the methanol IR, why not do MeOH-temperature programmed reaction (TPR), as described by Israel Wachs and Alexis Bell, and look for formaldehyde as a product.  Wachs makes the argument for your technique, although slightly different as he focuses on the catalysis.  Utilize this and make the characterization stronger by showing the interaction with the produce. With a stronger MeOH section, the transesterification section can be short.  

Overall, this work is more suited for a catalysis journal; however, after significant revisions, it could be reconsidered for Green Chemistry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
还不如直接拒掉,我再投别的杂志!唉!
不知道各位虫友有没有遇到这种情况,都是怎么处理的?

[ Last edited by 仗剑落花 on 2013-10-23 at 08:44 ]
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

hppdyx

木虫 (知名作家)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
让你大修就是有机会的,好好把握,说服reviewer

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
不以风骚惊天下,但求淫荡动世人
11楼2013-10-24 20:22:31
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 16 个回答

淡水云烟

捐助贵宾 (著名写手)

铁杆木虫


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
太长了没看完,但是第一段说了,修改以后要再投稿,也就是说还是要再审稿,这个和投别的杂志也差不多。不过,我觉得如果改的好,还是投这个杂志好,毕竟另外两个审稿人建议修改

[ 发自小木虫客户端 ]
耐得住寂寞,才守得住繁华
2楼2013-10-23 08:39:52
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

bachier

金虫 (职业作家)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
好好改吧,这个Editor比较看好你的文章,本来两个reviewers,一个拒一个接受,这个时候如果那个接受的意见不是非常非常好的话,很多都直接拒了。但是编辑给你找了仲裁,第三个审稿人其实是仲裁(写着adjudicator),所以你还是好好改吧,别辜负了编辑一番希望呵呵。
3楼2013-10-23 09:05:38
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

仗剑落花

金虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by bachier at 2013-10-23 09:05:38
好好改吧,这个Editor比较看好你的文章,本来两个reviewers,一个拒一个接受,这个时候如果那个接受的意见不是非常非常好的话,很多都直接拒了。但是编辑给你找了仲裁,第三个审稿人其实是仲裁(写着adjudicator), ...

非常感谢.刚才仔细看了一遍审稿意见,的确如您所说!
4楼2013-10-23 09:27:31
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
请填处理意见