New Magnetically Assembled Electrode Consisting of Magnetic Activated Carbon Particles and Ti/Sb-SnO2 for a More Flexible and Cost-Effective Electrochemical Oxidation Wastewater Treatment
, Jin Yang 1, Lei Feng 1, Sizhe Wang 1, Yong Li 1, Xiaohua Jia 1 and Haojie Song 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is not ready for publication and needs addition research. Replication of results is an essential item. The claim of roughness ratios is not supported. The reference used to claim roughness calculation utilized an earlier paper and showed that a capacitance value for the specific surface is needed This was not given nor available. Please see the attachment for highlighted and annotated notes
Numerous items have been highlighted in both the text and supplemental which can be addressed with additional research. If the authors can complete the work needed this will become a good paper for submission.
ps both English grammar and spell check should be run before submitting a manuscript to avoid distracting the reviewers
Comments for author File: Comments.zip
Author Response
Dear professor, thank you very much for your review. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work reports the preparation of a novel and flexible composite electrode (Fe3O4/AC on Sb-doped SnO2) assembled by magnetic force. Owing to the abundant active sites introduced by Fe3O4/AC as well as the enhanced mass/electron transfer, these composite electrodes show improved performance in the electro-oxidative degradation of three kinds of soluble organic pollutants as compared to Sb-doped SnO2 itself. The manuscript presents some interesting results but needs a major revision to address some detailed issues. Below are my suggestions/comments:
1. The chemical equations for the degradation of three organic pollutants should be explicitly presented in the manuscript, including the chemical structures of the pollutants and degradation products.
2. Line 59: The term “OER” is not defined.
3. Line 88-89 and following text: The composite electrodes were denoted as SnO2/MAC in the manuscript. Are the SnO2 substrates doped with Sb? If so, the notations should be changed to reflect the true composition and avoid misunderstanding.
4. Line 141: In the EDS analysis, the Authors ascribe the Al and Si signals to the impurities in the original AC, but did not show the EDS spectrum of the original AC to support the claim. If the original AC is a commercial product, I don’t think it should have such a high content of Si and Al. Rather, I feel these Si and Al might be introduced during the deposition of Fe3O4 (operated at 80 °C in an alkaline solution – the glass vessel might be etched under this condition). I suggest clarifying this issue.
5. Line 179: Specific electroactive species should be assigned for the pair of redox peaks at 0.50-0.25 V in the CV curves.
6. Line 216-218: Relevant literature should be cited to support the claim “20 mA·cm-2 has both direct and indirect oxidation effect while 2 mA·cm-2 mainly follows direct oxidation (or DET process).”
7. Fig. 5 and 6: I suggest omitting the accurate number of GC peak area for each circle as they have too many significant digits and are very distractive. The area of each circle is already quite clear visually. The chemical structures corresponding to each circle should be presented in a larger font size.
8. Contents of Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure S5, and Figure S6 are very hard to read because the figures and font size are too small. Larger figures with larger font size are needed.
9. Spelling errors in the manuscript should be carefully checked and corrected. For example: In Line 40, “sutting down” should be “shutting down”; in Line 198-201, “Fig. 3b” and “Fig. 3c” should be swapped; in Line 249, “Fig. 6” should be “Fig. 5”; in Line 255-256, “pheol” should be “phenol”, and “accummulation” should be “accumulation”; in Line 286, “versuse” should be “versus”; in the whole manuscript text, the abbreviations “EWOT” and “EOWT” are mixed up.
Author Response
Dear professor, thank you very much for your review. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Fig 2e and 2f plots shows MAE 0.05g is an outlier from the others. There is no clear trend in this data set to support improved mass transfer Line 189 revised text
This point has not been addressed
2 In conclusions, the claim"MAC is cost-effective and easy to be synthesized, .."
there is no data that MAC is cost effective This claim is not supported
Author Response
Dear professor, thanks for your comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
