[2] Ethyl pyruvate was used here as a typical compound (containing two carbonyl groups) to demonstrate the feasibility of using our diagnosing tool to detect low-coverage CO (coming from decarbonylation of EtPy) at the liquid-solid interface. EtPy is a reactant used in liquid-phase chiral catalysis, and slight decomposition of EtPy to adsorbed CO was reported to influence the catalytic performance. In addition, by studying that, we can directly compare our results with previous studies. More details in the first paragraph of Section 3.2.
[3] The IR cell was designed according to the IR cells used by many electrochemical workers. References were added. A photo was given in the Supporting Information.
[4] A flow diagram of the experimental setup was given in the new Fig. 1.
[5] The CO adsorption experiments were performed in the same adsorption mode, by bubbling CO through a clean Pt surface in different days to achieve the same saturation coverage of CO. Initial experiments indicated that given the CO bubbling rate was 0.85 cm3/min, CO can saturate on Pt after 30-45 min. We bubble CO for 60 min to guarantee the same CO coverage. If we bubble CO for more time, or if we increase the CO flowing rate several times, the CO saturation coverage doesn’t change, indicating 60 min is already enough. A figure showing the CO uptake as a
function of bubbling time was given in the Supporting Information.
[6] The displacement of EtPy by CCl4 was confirmed by the removing of EtPy peaks. The mention of Fig. 7a and 7b etc. throughout the text were all corrected.
[7] It is known that some solvents such as acetone can corrode the Viton o-ring. We saw the damage of o-ring after using high-concentration EtPy. A reference to the Viton o-ring information was given.
[8] The observed reactivity trend is due to a combination of both effects, with the accumulation of organic moieties on Pt surface during numerous flushing cycles the more important reason. A few proper sentences were added to clarity this point.
[9] The repeated arguments in the first paragraph in Section 4.3 were deleted.
[10] The too-long captions were significantly shortened.
In all, I found the reviewer’s comments are quite helpful, and I revised my paper point-by-point. Thank you and the review again for your help!
============================================== 结果：
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2006.09.005
欢迎浏览：
Organic Chemistry on Solid Surfaces (Review)
Z. Ma, F. Zaera*, Surface Scence Reports 61 (2006) 229-281. ScienceDirect TOP25 Hottest Articles in Chemistry http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.03.001
CI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1:
1. Response to comment: (??简要列出意见??) Response: ××××××
2. Response to comment: (??简要列出意见??) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。
逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏
针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……... It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……
We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that……
Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have …… 最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes:
1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ××××××
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
