Preparation and Photoelectric Properties of C-LaFeO3 Composites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- The mass loading of electrode should be considered and the CV curves in Figure 7 need to calibrate using the mass loading.
2- No significant variances in the SEM images of 10% and 20%. You can re-made it.
3- Author said the "O vacancy" in around line-166 (XPS). The XRD should reflex the O vacancy, either the shift of peaks, or the different intensity ratio. Please do it when revising.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
- The mass loading of electrode should be considered and the CV curves in Figure 7 need to calibrate using the mass loading.
Response: According to line 107 “The quantity of active materials of every working electrode was approximately 1 mg.”, the the CV curves in Figure 7 have been calibrated using the mass loading.
- No significant variances in the SEM images of 10% and 20%. You canre-made it.
Response: Compared to 10%, the C spheres of 20% in the nanocomposite increase, and LaFeO3 is dispersed on the surface of the C nanospheres. We will further confirm this in the follow work.
- Author said the "O vacancy" in around line-166 (XPS). The XRD should reflex the O vacancy, either the shift of peaks, or the different intensity ratio. Please do it when revising.
Response: The enlarged XRD spectra of different C-LaFeO3 samples have been added to the Figure 2(b) in the revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. How the presented work is comparable with the previously published similar work for photocatalysts fabrication? What is the novelty of this work? The following work may be discussed in the introduction part: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2020.100290, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135472
2. It is not clear here what the source of C is taken for the composite fabrication, Is it pure carbon or something else? It must be clearly updated in section 2.2.
3. In line 71 “After mixing for 0.5 h, 20 mL of C2H5OH solution was added to the solution and irradiated with simulated sunlight for 1 h. The product was filtered and dried ……..” Why does the author have done irradiation? Is it for the final product formation, if it is, is there any reference?
4. In the XRD spectra (Figure 1) plane (hkl) for LaFeO3 must be indexed.
5. As the author reported the photocatalytic activity of the prepared photocatalyst, thus author must go for at least band gap study.
6. In line 246 author have claimed that “……….and the electrochemical performance is improved. This improvement is primarily due to the good conductivity of the carbon material.” Here what is the meaning of carbon material, because all carbon materials do not have good conductivity?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
- How the presented work is comparable with the previously published similar work for photocatalysts fabrication? What is the novelty of this work? The following work may be discussed in the introduction part: https://doi.org/10.1016/scp.2020.100290, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135472.
Response: Thank you very much. The work has been discussed in the introduction part.
- It is not clear here what the source of C is taken for the composite fabrication, Is it pure carbon or something else?It must be clearly updated in section 2.2.
Response: It's already mentioned in the abstract, the C spheres synthesized by a hydrothermal method with C6H12O6·6H2O as raw material. It has been clearly updated in section 2.2.
The C spheres synthesized by a hydrothermal method with C6H12O6·6H2O as raw material. A certain amount of C6H12O6·6H2O was dissolved in deionized water to form a solution. The solution was transferred into a 100 mL Teflon-lined stainless steel autoclave and hydrothermally treated at 180°C for 6 h. After cooling to room temperature, the obtainedproduct was centrifuged . The product was then dried in an oven at 60°C for 5 h.
- In line 71 “After mixing for 0.5 h, 20 mL of C2H5OH solution was added to the solution and irradiated with simulated sunlight for1 The product was filtered and dried ……..” Why does the author have done irradiation? Is it for the final product formation, if it is, is there any reference?
Response: The simulated sunlightt experiment was done for comparison, but it turned out to have little effect. “simulated sunlight” has been deleted.
- In the XRD spectra (Figure 1) plane (hkl) for LaFeO3must be indexed.
Response: The XRD spectra plane (hkl) for LaFeO3 have been indexed to the Figure 1(a) in the revision.
- As the author reported the photocatalytic activity of the prepared photocatalyst, thus author must go for at least band gap study.
Response: Thank you for your opinion. We will further study this in the follow work.
6.In line 246 author have claimed that “……….and the electrochemical performance is improved. This improvement is primarily due to the good conductivity of the carbon material.” Here what is the meaning of carbon material, because all carbon materials do not have good conductivity?
Response: The above sentence shows that C doping improves the electrochemical performance of LaFeO3.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, the authors synthesized different C-LaFeO3 composites and found that C doping does not change the crystal structure of LaFeO3. The proper amount of C doping improves the photocatalytic and electrochemical activities of the composite, but excess C reduces the photocatalytic and electrochemical activities of the C-LaFeO3 composite. Several suggestions were given to improve the quality of the paper.
1. In the introduction part, the recent advances about LaFeO3 photocatalysis should be recused so that the motivation of this work can be put forward. Some related works may give more infor: Chemosphere 294 (2022) 133763; ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 10616; Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 231 (2018) 92; Journal of Catalysis 369 (2019) 190
2. In section 2.3, since LaFeO3 is a magnetic material, why the aqueous solution was under magnetic stirring? In addition, the light intensity should be given with respect to the distance and reaction area. Any filter added?
3.In 3.1, part of the C doping into the LaFeO3 may cause the shrinkage of the LaFeO3 lattice, which should be identified in the XRD pattern or enlarged XRD. In addition, the statement of "doping" and "mixed“ should be distinguished throughout the paper.
4. HRTEM and SAED would be better to provide in addition to SEM to present clear image on the morphology.
5. What is the band gap configuration and charge transfer for LaFeO3/C composite, since it is very important for the photocatalytic mechanism.
6. The language should be double checked and largely improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:
- In the introduction part, the recent advances about LaFeO3photocatalysis should be recused so that the motivation of this work can be put forward. Some related works may give more infor: Chemosphere 294 (2022) 133763; ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 10616; Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 231 (2018) 92; Journal of Catalysis 369 (2019) 190.
Response: Thank you very much. The work has been discussed in the introduction part.
- In section 2.3, sinceLaFeO3 is a magnetic material, why the aqueous solution was under magnetic stirring? In addition, the light intensity should be given with respect to the distance and reaction area. Any filter added?
Response: Supporting your opinion, the photocatalytic activity would be affected. We ran a blank parallel experiment, and the data was stable. The light intensity has be given with respect to the distance and reaction area in section 2.3. Any filter hasn’t be added.
3.In 3.1, part of the C doping into the LaFeO3 may cause the shrinkage of the LaFeO3 lattice, which should be identified in the XRD pattern or enlarged XRD. In addition, the statement of "doping" and "mixed“ should be distinguished throughout the paper.
Response: The enlarged XRD spectra of different C-LaFeO3 samples have been added to the Figure 1(b) in the revision. The statement of "doping" and "mixed“ has be distinguished throughout the paper.
4.HRTEM and SAED would be better to provide in addition to SEM to present clear image on the morphology.
Response: Thank you for your opinion. We will further study these in the follow work.
5.What is the band gap configuration and charge transfer for LaFeO3/C composite, since it is very important for the photocatalytic mechanism.
Response: Supporting your opinion, we will further study this in the follow work.
- The language should be double checked and largely improved.
Response: English language have been checked and improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
the paper can be accepted after some editing
Author Response
Dear Editor:
Thank you very much for your email dated Dec 14th enclosing the reviewer’ s comments for our manuscript [sustainability-2076320] entitled “Preparation and Photoelectric Properties of C-LaFeO3 Composites”. We have studied the reviewers’ comments carefully. We appreciated the valuable comments to improve this manuscript. In the revision, the corresponding changes have been highlighted with a green background.
- Due to an oversight, the email address waswritten incorrectly. The email addressof line 5 and 6 has been adjusted.
2.According to the reviewer's opinion, the statement of "doping" and "mixed“ has be distinguished throughout the paper of line 10.
3.According to the reviewer's opinion, the recent advances about LaFeO3 photocatalysis have been studied and indexed in line 34 and 38. Reference 11 and reference 13 were deleted. The following reference number and references of in References have been changed.
4.According to the reviewer's opinion "In line 71 “After mixing for 0.5 h, 20 mL of C2H5OH solution was added to the solution and irradiated with simulated sunlight for 1 h. The product was filtered and dried ……..” Why does the author have done irradiation? Is it for the final product formation, if it is, is there any reference?" , the simulated sunlight experiment was done for comparison, but it turned out to have little effect. “with simulated sunlight” of line 79 has been deleted.
5.According to the reviewer's opinion "It is not clear here what the source of C is taken for the composite fabrication, Is it pure carbon or something else? It must be clearly updated in section 2.2." , it has been clearly updated in section 2.2.
6.According to the reviewer's opinion"In section 2.3, since LaFeO3 is a magnetic material, why the aqueous solution was under magnetic stirring? In addition, the light intensity should be given with respect to the distance and reaction area. Any filter added?" , the light intensity has be given with respect to the distance and reaction area in section 2.3.
7.According to the reviewer's opinion"In the XRD spectra (Figure 1) plane (hkl) for LaFeO3 must be indexed.", the XRD spectra plane (hkl) for LaFeO3 have been indexed to the Figure 1(a) in the revision.
8.According to the reviewer's opinion"In 3.1, part of the C doping into the LaFeO3 may cause the shrinkage of the LaFeO3 lattice, which should be identified in the XRD pattern or enlarged XRD.", the enlarged XRD spectra of different C-LaFeO3 samples have been added to the Figure 1(b) in the revision.
9.According to the reviewer's opinion"The mass loading of electrode should be considered and the CV curves in Figure 7 need to calibrate using the mass loading." , the CV curves in Figure 7 have been calibrated using the mass loading.
10.Due to an oversight, the National Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training for University of PRC was missed. The National Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training for University of PRC has been added in Funding and Acknowledgments.
Best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Shudan Li, PhD
Harbin University
2022-12-18
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
