A Critical Review of Clay Mineral-Based Photocatalysts for Wastewater Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is my favorite article. I think the readers will highly appreciate it. Some suggestions for improving the article:
1- The quality of the images is very bad. Authors must replace original and high-quality images. For example, Figure 1 cannot be read at all!
2- A graphical abstract is very necessary for "Clay minerals activation methods".
3- The mechanism of "Clay minerals activation methods" should be highlighted in each part.
4- The authors should highlight and explained a detailed whether Clay is an active material or is always used as a substrate in "3. Photocatalyst modification strategies".
5- One part of the article was confusing for me." 4.2.1 Zeolite-based photocatalyst" !! Is zeolite considered one of the clay minerals?
6- In a separate section, the difference in photocatalyst mechanism by Clay, Zeolite, Diatomite, Sepiolite, tapulgite and Montmorillonite should be added.
7- SEM images or any other characterization such as elemental analysis that shows the difference between diatomite, sepiolite, ttapulgite and montmorillonite should be added to the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors:

 

After reviewing your contribution, "A Critical Review of Clay Minerals-Based Photocatalysts for Wastewater Treatment," I have the following comments:

 

When using the word "critical," it is essential to provide a thorough analysis of the state of the art in the field, including a deeper examination of every topic mentioned in your contribution. T

 

It is necessary to include a comprehensive summary of clay minerals applied to photocatalysis in a table format; the table should cover the following aspects: reactor type, radiative type, material applied, and pollutant concentration. Based on this data, a detailed analysis of surface properties, heterojunctions, molecules to be mineralized, including the impact of radiative transfer and reaction mechanisms, is mandatory.

 

Finally, in your discussion around minerals-based materials, please include the following:

a) An analysis of surface charges based on chemical models, including heterojunctions.

b) Information on radiative transfer, such as absorption, extinction, and scattering.

c) A discussion on how these materials interact with more complex molecules, such as phenol-based compounds. 

d) Reaction mechanim, inlcuding an analysis  on how photons and charges impact on reaction rates and mechanims must be inlcuded.   

 

Improve Figure 1 for better clarity and visual impact.

 

Create a dedicated section on future perspectives, emphasizing how to enhance these materials concerning radiative transfer and the mineralization of more recalcitrant molecules.

 

With kind regards,

 

Carlos

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my observations. The manuscript can be accepted from my side.