Hydrothermal Co-Crystallization of Novel Copper Tungstate-Strontium Titanate Crystal Composite for Enhanced Photocatalytic Activity and Increased Electron–Hole Recombination Time
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachmen
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this work, authors report on a composite material (copper tungstate – strontium titanate) which exhibits enhanced photocatalytic activity and increased electron – hole recombination time. This is an interesting paper but the results are not always well supported by the data presented. I am really confused about the characterization and the performance of this material/. I have the following comments to improve the quality of this manuscript.
There are a few English and grammar mistakes, please check out the whole manuscript carefully and make the necessary changes. For example, please check out how you used the word become in the abstract. In both cases you used it in the wrong way, please make the necessary corrections.
In the introduction the authors need to be more specific and say what else has been used to modify SrTiO3 until today? Their material shows higher photocatalytic activity than pure SrTiO3, but how it is compared with other modified SrTiO3?
The presentation of Figure 1 is not nice, it is better to do it as (A), (B) and (C) rather with lines crossing figure 1B.
In figure 1, all the XRDs of SrTiO3 (CWS0) and of all the samples with increased CuWO4 content look the same. Do the authors have any SEM or TEM images to support their conclusions?
In figure 2, the bandgap energy determination is strange, for most samples is the same for some others it goes up and down, it does not follow a pattern, for example as the content increases, the bandgap to increase as well. Why is that?
In figure 3, please correct in x axis the title, wavelength is misspelled. In addition, the PL spectra for all samples looks the same, no matter what the content is. Is this what the authors expected?
According to table one the specific surface area goes up and down, it doesn’t follow a pattern. Why? How reproducible are these results? How many times you repeated these measurements?
Even in the photocatalytic activity measurements in figure 6, it goes up and down in a strange way.
In the experimental section it is obvious that the preparation method of the catalyst is long and energy consuming. Is it worth using such a catalyst? How expensive is this material?
How does it compare with other catalysts used for the same application?
Figure 8 should not be part of the experimental section. It is better to go as supporting information.
Author Response
Please see the attachmen
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript and addressed well following the reviewer's comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
I am satisfied with all the responses of the authors to my comments. The authors did a good work and revised the manuscript accordingly. It is in a much better shape now and I recommend it to be accepted for publication.
