怎样回复审稿人意见.docVIP

Reviewers comments: Reviewer #3: While revising the script, it is to be suggested that author should clearly indicate the aim scope of the study and while making conclusion, it is to be mentioned how the study is useful for the practical purposes. In addition the following are the few suggestions/comments, which may be included while revision. 1. Introduction part first para last line, author must avoid to write ambiguous statement i.e., much work is still ahead, may indicate properly. 2. Author could not demonstrate the reason why, to select the organic compound such as ethyl pyruvate for this study? 3. Experimental part: It is difficult to understand the in-situ RAIRS experiments with homemade liquid-solid RAIRS cell. More detailed information may be useful for the others those who are working in the area. Photograph of the assembled cell may be included. 4. The description given for the experimental set up (page 4) can be presented by flow diagram instead, as an ease to understand the set up. 5. Resluts Part (Page 6): CO adlayers with identical monolayer coverages, the monolayer coverage, is it been performed with some adsorption model? Further, it was suggested that CO-saturated Pt surface, but not mentioned about the saturation experiments. Is it obtained after 60 min of CO bubbling? 6. Page 12, 2nd para: The displacement of EtPy by CCl4 flushing, is it confirmed by the EtPy peaks? If so, it has to be mentioned clearly in the para. Also in the same para, author referred for Fig. 7a and 7b but in the figures, it didnt appear, only figure 7 appeared. I feel it refers for figure 7, portion A and B, to be corrected. Similarly, in the text referred the fig 2a, 2b. etc but on the figure sheet it is mentioned as 2A, 2B .etc. to be corrected. 7. Page 14, 1st para: contamination of the Pt surface by corrosion of o-rings in high concentration EtPy, but the statement has not been supported by other evidence/literature. 8. Pages 14 through 17: the observed reactivity