Getting an article published is really about marketing.
I look at your "catalyst" and ask "what does it do and why should I care?"
If I was your reviewer, and I have reviewed dozens of papers, this is exactly what I would say.
408 is on the money with those comments.
I don't mean to be snarky, but the question virtually begs the issue. Let me rephrase this somewhat. If I showed you a gold ingot and asked, "Does this have any value and do you think I could sell it?" You would know that I didn't know anything about the value of gold nor what it could be used for.
The poster's question is virtually the same sort. We should presume the poster did not know what scientific merit his catalyst had nor who was interested in it. Journal editors want to know what contribution to science does a paper have (though I prefer how 408 said it).
The catalyst could have a lot of value, but it would be difficult for us (me) to judge. It could be inferior to some important process or it could be invaluable to an as yet undiscovered industrial process. I was just reading about some unusual discoveries. For example, it took 3M 10 years to eventually market post-it notes, after discovery.