Copper Oxide-Based Photocatalysts and Photocathodes: Fundamentals and Recent Advances

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted review reports on the fundamental aspects and some recent advances in copper oxide-based photocatalysts and photocathodes. Authors discuss in details physico-chemical properties of Cu₂O materials as well as various copper oxide-based materials such as ternary and quaternary copper oxides, composites of copper oxide with various semiconductors and carbon-based materials and also a short approach of the applications of these materials in photocatalysis and photoelectrocatalysis. The review is long, but it seems to be well organized.

 

I agree with the publication of the manuscript after the following minor issues will be sorted out.

 

 

1. Please include within the Conclusion part a paragraph summarizing which is the authors opinion related to the best strategy in order to get/design the highly active and stable photoactive materials for new generation of photocatalysts and photocathodes.
2. The resolution of Figures 2, 6, 9, 14 and 16 must be increased. These figures are barely readable and should not be published in the present form.
3. The following phrase “The former (referred as Cu₂O/CuO system) have a stronger absorption in the visible region, whose edge is at about 900 nm” (line 154), should be corrected. At 900 nm it is the narrow infrared (NIR) region of electromagnetic spectrum and not visible domain.
4. There is a systematic error with the reference editor. There are a lot of errors (“Error! Reference source not found.”) appearing all over the manuscript. Also, the chemical formulae within the reference list must be corrected.
5. What does it mean the symbol cr within the Figure 3 - Pourbaix diagram, bearing in mind that within the same diagram Cu₂O(s) is solid phase?
6. The following abbreviations should be explained WS, MOF. Also, the acronym FTO should be explained where it was used for the first time and not in the end of the manuscript.
7. The symbols, Ec and Ev, associated with the energy of the conduction (CB) and valence (VB) band, respectively are missing in Figure 8 d).
8. Cu2O (line 541) should become Cu₂O
9. “Mao et al.” should be written using Italics “Mao et al.” This modification should be corrected all over the manuscript.
10. Please check the phrases:

“This is not surprising when considering that these ions can contribute to the 2 electron 3 center bonding network (lines 249-250).”

“Using range separated hybrid functionals we recently found a BG Our computational value of 1.95 eV (lines 397-398).”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review is well-organized. It provides a lot of useful information that may attract researchers in the photocatalysis and electrochemistry fields. It can be accepted after revision. Some comments are listed as follows.

1. Line 181, 200, 392, 393, 1199, 1221,

The errors should be corrected.

2. line 345

“Extent” should be “extend”.

3. line 348-353, 418-429

These two parts can be shifted to section 2.2.

4. There is CuO related literature review in sections 2.5 & 2.6. It seems better. Is it possible to add a Table about CuO-based doping that is similar to Table 4 (Cu2O-based doping)?

5. Section 3.2, Line 1096-1103

Please describe whether various cocatalysts are deposited on CuO or Cu2O or both.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf