Fischer–Tropsch: Product Selectivity–The Fingerprint of Synthetic Fuels
, Muthu Kumaran Gnanamani 2, Uschi M. Graham 3, Jia Yang 4, Cornelius M. Masuku 5, Gary Jacobs 6 and Burtron H. Davis 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors in this work gave a nice overview of the FTS products distribution/selectivity over common metallic catalysts. A detailed discussion in the efficiency of the catalysts, mechanism, etc. has been performed. This work is very informative to the FTS community in exploring advanced FTS catalysts. Review suggestion is to accept this work as a publication in Catalysts with a minor revision. My specific comments are attached below.
1. It seems that there are some contents are missing in the section of 1.2.1 (A Brief History). The authors should double check it and complete their text. Also, where is the general theory of Chromatography in the section 3.1.1.?
2. The authors are suggested to carefully checking their texts. There are some errors: a “α” is missing in Line 228 of the page 9. Similar incomplete sentence can be found in Line 828 of page 39.
3. I am curious if the d-band center theory is applied in the CO adsorption onto the catalysts during FTS? If so, the authors are suggested adding some corresponding insights.
Author Response
The authors want to, first and foremost, thank the reviewer for their time and effort in reviewing this manuscript. A point-by-point response was uploaded.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this review article, the authors describes 'Fischer-Tropsch: Product Selectivity - The Finger Print of Synthetic Fuels'. There are certain concerns the authors need to address. These are shown below.
1) The abstract is quite superfluous. The authors should consider revising it to capture the main points.
2)In line 66, add a comma (,) in 'In the GTL process,....'
3) In line 78, remove the comma (,) in 'free, fuels....'
3) In line 228, the sentence in not complete. ie ' specific ? values...'
4)In line 275, in order not to confuse readers, figure 10 need to be repositioned to be part of the chromatogram and not on difference pages.
5) In line 314, in the preparation of the precipitated iron catalyst series: The method describe is vague and cannot be reproduced. consider revising the section which says...'Fe:Si catalyst base powder was impregnated with the proper amounts of aqueous alkali nitrate..' by providing the exact quantities if possible.
6) In line 318-319, the designations for molar should be M. Example: 0.6M
7) In line 343-344, again, the method described is vague and lacks specifics. Consider revising that by including specifics.
8) There must be a space between line 637 and line 638. and also line 715 and the chromatograph. The way it appears now has the potential to confuse readers.
9) In line 805, The beginning sentence is incomplete. ie..'The nature of CO, a ? - acceptor ligand...'
10) Again in line 828, the sentence is incomplete.
11) In line 955 and 956, the sentence does not make sense.
There are also many other incomplete sentences and gramma issues throughout the manuscript that he authors need to address.
In short, this review article is wordy and superfluous, and could use much organization and brevity if it is to benefit its targeted audience and merit publication.
Author Response
The authors want to, first and foremost, thank the reviewer for their time and effort in reviewing this manuscript. A point-by-point response was uploaded.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All the concerns raised has been addressed.
