- 分享到:
Comment 1: The abstract is too brief. Please add a short introductive sentence. Answer: A short introductive sentence has been added in the revised manuscript. Comment 2: Introduction section must be developed. Please focus the state of the art on your subject. The paper is descriptive. The scientific approach (phenomenon description and explanations must be improved.) Answer: Thanks for the comments. We did our best to revise and improve the introduction as well as the description of the article. All the changes have been marked in blue color in the present version. Comment 3: Please avoid formulation such as: "the catalyst can be reused three times". This is not engineering formulation. Answer: The unsuitable description of "the catalyst can be reused three times" in the highlights has been revised. Comment 5: Add variation curves of the catalysis efficiency as well as the calculation method. Answer: We are sorry that we possibly didn’t catch the comment “Add variation curves of the catalysis efficiency” truly. Here we answered the comment just based on our understanding. Both tables and figures are generally employed to describe results, they can be used together or not [1-3]. However, tables are widely employed if the evaluated parameters exceed 2 [4,5]. We think it’s suitable to show the catalysis efficiency by tables in the present work since the conversion of styrene oxide, the selectivity as well as yield towards styrene carbonate were given and discussed in detail. The calculation equations for the conversion of styrene oxide, the yield and the selectivity to styrene carbonate have been supplied. Please see the section of “Determination of conversion, yield and selectivity” in the revised version. Comment 5: Minor grammatical issues need to addressed. Answer: Thank you for the comments. We did our best to check the whole manuscript and all the revisions were marked in blue color.
