Fluoride-Doped TiO2 Photocatalyst with Enhanced Activity for Stable Pollutant Degradation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work presents an interesting study on a fluoride doped TiO2 photocatalyst with enhanced activity in pollutants degradation. I suggest this article to be published after minor revision.
Comments:
1. Please carefully revise the manuscript to remove the grammatical errors and vague sentences.
2. Please check that the references follow the same pattern.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the reviewer for the comments and, consequentlym, we have revised the whole manuscript in terms of english and references. You may notice more changes due to another reviewer´s comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reports the photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue dye and bisphenol A using fluoride doped TiO2 UV-photo-catalyst. The manuscript is well written and organized; however, revision is needed according to the following comments.
1) In the recent past, several studies have been reported about photocatalytic degradation dyes and various other organic contaminants from water and wastewater. Thus, novelty of this work should be highlighted clearly in the introduction as compared to other articles published recently in the year 2021-2022. The authors should highlights changes clearly in the revised manuscript.
2) It will be better for readers if authors provide the information about optimization of amount of each component and reaction conditions in order to synthesize catalyst.
3) Authors should elaborate the information in details about the cost of this set-up and water treatment at large scale and provide comparative details with other water approaches.
4) Authors should assign the name of each peak in XRD, Raman spectral results and clearly demonstrate their meaning with respect to developed product.
5) Please provide the error bar in each figure which is representing experimental results.
6) Figure quality of the some figures is very poor. These figures should be provided with improved quality and higher resolution.
7) Please provide detail information about products after photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue dye and bisphenol-A and their fates in water and wastewater.
8) Sub-section 3.3.5: should be revised along with information of photocatalytic degradation efficacy in various matrix and natural environmental conditions in real field. Authors should discuss the efficacy in different-different water and wastewater matrix.
9) English of the manuscript should be revised carefully.
Therefore, my recommendation is resubmission of the manuscript with a major revision in the suggested points, before being considered for publication in this Journal.
Author Response
1) In the recent past, several studies have been reported about photocatalytic degradation dyes and various other organic contaminants from water and wastewater. Thus, novelty of this work should be highlighted clearly in the introduction as compared to other articles published recently in the year 2021-2022. The authors should highlights changes clearly in the revised manuscript.
Response to the comment: Thanks to the reviewer’s comment, we have changed the introduction so the novelty of the manuscript, which is the usage of a one-step synthesized catalyst and its electrochemical characterization, is highlighted.
2) It will be better for readers if authors provide the information about optimization of amount of each component and reaction conditions in order to synthesize catalyst.
Response to the comment: Thanks to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added that information of section 4.2 catalyst synthesis
3) Authors should elaborate the information in details about the cost of this set-up and water treatment at large scale and provide comparative details with other water approaches.
Response to the comment: We agree with the reviewer, and the costs are an important factor so we have added the actual cost of this set-up and we have added some comments about the future scale-up of the process.
4) Authors should assign the name of each peak in XRD, Raman spectral results and clearly demonstrate their meaning with respect to developed product.
Response to the comment: We have added the exact peaks on Raman explanation, and we have included the peaks on XRD graph.
5) Please provide the error bar in each figure which is representing experimental results.
Response to the comment: We provided on section 4.2 the information about the fact we have plot the average data of the duplicate experiences and the exact maximum error deviation (4.3 %), as the error bars are so small that were not even noticeable when added to the plots.
6) Figure quality of the some figures is very poor. These figures should be provided with improved quality and higher resolution.
Response to the comment: We are grateful to the reviewer for the comment, nevertheless we have copied the figures with the “enhanced metafile tool” so there may be some sort of modification through the upload/download procedure. If we have the opportunity of publishing, we’ll take a careful look to the images quality on the final proofs.
7) Please provide detail information about products after photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue dye and bisphenol-A and their fates in water and wastewater.
Response to the comment: Thanks to the reviewer for its suggestion. In fact, this an interesting topic that has been widely covered and consequently, we have added some references on section 2.3.5 of previous degradation pathways, as the aim of the manuscript was to be centred on the reactor set-up and characterization.
8) Sub-section 3.3.5: should be revised along with information of photocatalytic degradation efficacy in various matrix and natural environmental conditions in real field. Authors should discuss the efficacy in different-different water and wastewater matrix.
Response to the comment: We are grateful to the reviewer comment, and we have highlighted on this section the fact that we have the degradation profile of MBA and BPA on other matrixes and the reasons for the detriments.
9) English of the manuscript should be revised carefully.
Response to the comment: Thanks to the reviewer’ comment, we have checked carefully the English and changed some mistakes
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved the manuscript and covered the all comments.
