Dependency of Crystal Violet Dye Removal Behaviors onto Mesoporous V2O5-g-C3N4 Constructed by Simplistic Ultrasonic Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Dependency of Crystal Violet Dye removal Behaviors onto Mesoporous V2O5-g-C3N4 Constructed by Simplistic ultrasonic method”. The topic is important and interested. However, some descriptions are unclear and the partial content needs to be improved. I suggest the manuscript should be revised before publication. The following comments could improve the manuscript.
1- At what wavelength the authors analyzed the CV dye by the spectrophotometer.
2- line 95: add the units of the parameters of the equation qe=..
3- correct numbering of sections 3.1.1
4- The interpretation of the results of the effect of pH, initial concentration, and contact time are very poor.
5- According to the figure 5 (a) the maximum adsorbed quantity found experimentally is close to 450 mg/g while the maximum adsorbed quantity calculated by the Langmuir model is 664 mg/g!!! how do you explain this difference
6- add the units of the parameters in table 3
7- Please read these reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA08059A; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06185-z; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.02.071
Author Response
1- At what wavelength the authors analyzed the CV dye by the spectrophotometer.
The authors apologize for the missing of this information. The experimental conditions have been more detailed, and the wavelength used to analyze the CV dyes was added.
2- line 95: add the units of the parameters of the equation qe=..
The authors apologize for the missing of this information. The units of the parameters qe was added.
3- correct numbering of sections 3.1.1
The authors are grateful for the Reviewers’ remarks. The numbering of the sections was corrected.
4- The interpretation of the results of the effect of pH, initial concentration, and contact time are very poor.
The authors are grateful to the reviewer’s recommendation. The interpretation of the results has been improved by taking into consideration the above comment.
5- According to the figure 5 (a) the maximum adsorbed quantity found experimentally is close to 450 mg/g while the maximum adsorbed quantity calculated by the Langmuir model is 664 mg/g!!! how do you explain this difference
The authors greatly acknowledge the Reviewer for raising this question. The experimental equilibrium data may not be sufficient to determine the maximum adsorption capacity. In effect, the experimental result for CV dye was analyzed by adsorption isotherm models (Langmuir and Freundlich) to estimate the maximum adsorption capacity. In addition, the Langmuir model assumes total monolayer coverage at equilibrium. In our case, the rise in the CV dye concentration shows marked enhancement (fig 4d), and the saturation doesn't reach.
6- add the units of the parameters in table 3
The authors thank the Reviewer for this valuable remark. The units of the parameters were added in table 3.
7- Please read these reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA08059A; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06185-z; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.02.071
As suggested by the Reviewer, the above proposed references have been considered and added to manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article reports on the preparation and dye removal performance of V2O5-g-C3N4. The results obtained can add to the body of literature; however, the following comments can help to increase quality of the work.
1. I would recommend that the title of the article is modified to be more meaningful and comperhensive. For example: “Organic dye removal performance of mesoporous V2O5-g-C3N4 prepared by simple ultrasonic method”
2. Line 41: “Carbon nitride (gC3N4)” should read “graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4)”
3. Line 44: “high excellent thermal stability” should read “excellent thermal stability”
4. Line45: “gC3N4” should read “g-C3N4”. Please correct the term throughout the manuscript.
5. Lines 55-56: “V2O5 doped g-C3N4”. The product is V2O5 incorporated with g-C3N4, rather than doped C3N4.
6. Section 2.3 (CV dye adsorption procedure) is short and requires more details. In particular, how did the author measured the dye concentration? Did they use UV-Vis spectrometer? Please accurately determine the device and the procedure.
7. Fig. 2a: Please clearly add the standard XRD patterns g-C3N4 and V2O5 to the image to confirm the presence of these phases. Also, did the author observe any impurity based on the XRD results. Please explain it in the article.
8. In Results and discussion, I recommend that the authors add a selected number of UV-Vis curves for each dye, in order to scientifically show the removal of those dyes. It can increase quality of the presentation.
9. Please cite alternative adsorbents prepared recently for dye removal and briefly discuss the advantage of V2O5-g-C3N4:
ZrO2-g-C3N4: (ZOCN) Modwi et al. Diamond and Related Materials 132 (2023)109698
ZnV2O4-g-C3N4: Mirhosseini et al., Applied Organometallic Chemistry 36 (2022) e6867
MgO-g-C3N4: Modwi et al., Environmental Research 205 (2022) 112543
Fe2O3-g-C3N4: Wang et al., RSC Advances, 9 (2019) 29109-29119
CoFe2O4/Co3Fe7@carbon:
Wei et al., Journal of Water Process Engineering 49 (2022) 103067
Wei et al., Journal of Alloys and Compounds 886 (2021) 161201
Author Response
- I would recommend that the title of the article is modified to be more meaningful and comperhensive. For example: “Organic dye removal performance of mesoporous V2O5-g-C3N4prepared by simple ultrasonic method”
The authors appreciate the Reviewer's recommendation, and the proposed title is meaningful and comprehensive, but this paper comes within the framework of a research project supported by our university. Among the conditions for accepting funding, the research title must be fixed.
- Line 41: “Carbon nitride (gC3N4)” should read “graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4)”
As recommended by the Reviewer, the sentence was corrected.
- Line 44: “high excellent thermal stability” should read “excellent thermal stability”
As recommended by the Reviewer, the sentence was corrected.
- Line45: “gC3N4” should read “g-C3N4”. Please correct the term throughout the manuscript.
As recommended by the Reviewer, the sentence was corrected.
- Lines 55-56: “V2O5doped g-C3N4”. The product is V2O5incorporated with g-C3N4, rather than doped C3N4.
As recommended by the Reviewer, the sentence was corrected.
- Section 2.3 (CV dye adsorption procedure) is short and requires more details. In particular, how did the author measured the dye concentration? Did they use UV-Vis spectrometer? Please accurately determine the device and the procedure.
The authors thank the Reviewer for adding more details in the experimental part. All required details have been now incorporated in the experimental section.
- Fig. 2a: Please clearly add the standard XRD patterns g-C3N4and V2O5to the image to confirm the presence of these phases. Also, did the author observe any impurity based on the XRD results. Please explain it in the article.
The authors appreciate the Reviewer's suggestion. The XRD patterns of g-C3N4 and V2O5 were added. Both the definite diffraction peaks orthorhombic phase of V2O5 and g-C3N4 are observable in XRD patterns of V2O5-g-C3N4, and no other impurities are detected, confirming the purity of fabricated nanocomposites.
- In Results and discussion, I recommend that the authors add a selected number of UV-Vis curves for each dye, in order to scientifically show the removal of those dyes. It can increase quality of the presentation.
The authors do agree with the Reviewer's recommendation. The UV-Vis curves for each dye before and after adsorption were added.
- Please cite alternative adsorbents prepared recently for dye removal and briefly discuss the advantage of V2O5-g-C3N4:
ZrO2-g-C3N4: (ZOCN) Modwi et al. Diamond and Related Materials 132 (2023)109698
ZnV2O4-g-C3N4: Mirhosseini et al., Applied Organometallic Chemistry 36 (2022) e6867
MgO-g-C3N4: Modwi et al., Environmental Research 205 (2022) 112543
Fe2O3-g-C3N4: Wang et al., RSC Advances, 9 (2019) 29109-29119
CoFe2O4/Co3Fe7@carbon: Wei et al., Journal of Water Process Engineering 49 (2022) 103067
Wei et al., Journal of Alloys and Compounds 886 (2021) 161201
The authors appreciate the Reviewer's valuable suggestion. A brief discussion concerning the advantage of V2O5-g-C3N4 was added in the introduction section.
As suggested by the Reviewer, the above proposed references have been considered and added to manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version can be accepted for publication in this journal
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the effort made by authors to modify the article that improved quality of the work. However the authors have rejected to modify the Title of article. In my opinion, the current title does not make sense and needs to be revised.
