Photocatalytic-Fenton Process under Simulated Solar Radiation Promoted by a Suitable Catalyst Selection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of research - photocatalysis of the oxidation of organic waste in water - is highly relevant. Despite the large number of works in this area, this manuscript contains a certain element of novelty, since the synthesized catalyst showed a higher activity than the analogs described earlier. Therefore, the results obtained by the authors may be of interest to readers.
The work was done quite competently, the synthesized catalyst is well described, the experiment seems to be reproducible. I believe that the manuscript can be published without a major revision. The only wish to the authors is that it is better to proofread the text, it contains typos, some of which are conceptual. For example, the name of one of the authors in the Citation section on page 1 or numbering of tables (in the text, references to Table 1 are given, and the table itself is numbered 2).
Author Response
THank you very much for your positive comments, we have change some small errors such as those mentioned by you
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
I have read the manuscript Catalysts-1292443 entitled: “Photocatalytic-Fenton process under simulated solar radiation promoted by a suitable catalyst selection” and I would like to address some suggestions to the authors:
Pg. 1, line 12: This results were compared - should be - These results were compared
Pg. 1, line 28: It includes the most reported photocatalyst TiO2, [Please insert one or two references, e.g. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583724.2019.1676776,..)
Pg. 3, line 105: under N2 atmosphere. – 2 is subscript.
Pg. 4, line 140: figure 1 - or – Fig. 1? Please verify all manuscript!
Pg. 4, line 154: What is mean “BF image”?
Pg. 6, lines 190-191: In “Fe3O4-SiO2-TiO2, Fe3O4, Fe3O4-SiO2 and TiO2 shown significant absorp- 190
tion bands at, respectively, 437, 560 and 400 nm” appear four compounds (Fe3O4-SiO2-TiO2, Fe3O4, Fe3O4-SiO2 and TiO2) but three values of wavelength (437, 560 and 400 nm). Please verify!
Pg. 8, line 230: Where is in the text Table 1? Please verify! The table is missing.
Pg. 9: Where is specified in text Reference [16]? Please verify!
Pg. 9, line 267: by Kalm et al. [1] with - should be - by Kalam et al. [1] with
Pg. 10, line 298: (table S-1) - should be - (Table S-1)
Pg. 10, line 348: [4] ;Chi,Y., Q. - should be - [4] Chi,Y., Q…
There are some format mistakes and inconsistence throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your help on enhancing the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed all your comments and have readed carefully the manuscript so other small mistakes were deleted
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Agree
It is in proper form for publication.
