An Alternative Methodology for the Evaluation of Photocatalytic Activity of Polymeric Coatings by Monitoring Dye Degradation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled “An alternative methodology for the evaluation of photocatalytic activity of polymeric coatings by monitoring dye degradation” presents interesting results. The work is sound and well organized, but there are several major issues need to be addressed before considering for publication.

1.     Abstracts should be modified in a scientific manner; it looks like introduction.

2.     Fig. 6 and Table 2 can be removed.

3.     In general, the absorption wavelength of RhB and MG are 554 and 617 nm respectively. However, the reported bands are located at around 570 and 640 nm respectively (as shown in Figure 7). Justify.

4.     In addition, the band position reported in Figure 7 is not matched with Figure 12. Justify.

5.     The absorption band positions of Figure 8 (a) and 12 (a) are not matched with Figure 8 (b) and Figure 12 (b) respectively. Justify.

6.     Conclusions need to be revised.

7.     References should be arranged according to the journal style.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work Sandua et al. have shown that the photocatalytic activity of polymer coatings of polymer coating can be evaluated by studying dye degradation. Based on the experiments conducted with several dyes authors conclude that RhB has heighest degradation while MY has lowest degradation. These conclusions were mainly driven by FTIR spectra change. This is a proof-of-principle study and I did not find much to criticize. There are few points I would like the authors to correct/comment before accepting this paper for publication.

1) Page8, Fig. 4: Can the authors do the elemental analysis of 2D maps? This would give more clear picture about the elemental composition of bright spots.

2) Page8, Fig. 5: How are the error bars calculated? For (a) are they based on the 5 measurements of contact angle?

3) For all the absorption spectra, it will be very helpful if authors label different peaks and the modes associated with them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Decision:

Major revision

Comments
         The authors reported an alternative methodology for evaluating the photocatalytic activity of polymeric coatings by monitoring dye degradation.

 Overall, the work may be of interest to a broader audience. However, the authors should address the following points outlined below to improve scientific quality. After the suggested revisions are carefully addressed, this work may be considered for publication.

1.   The abstract is 2 long. Remove the first 4 lines from the abstract and add them to the introduction section. It should be clear and informative with essential highlights. 

3.  In the introduction section, Line 67 to 77 they cited several references but most of them are very old. Add some new connections.

https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11121456

4.   Compare the literature review with a recent study in the introduction section from 67-77  

5.   In SEM results in Line 227 to 228 the author mentioned that some beads are also formed due to certain instabilities during the deposition process. What are those certain instabilities? Kindly the possible conditions there.

6.  There are many grammatical errors, recheck the manuscript once again for all typo errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors worked hard to revise the manuscript and answered all the queries to my concern. Hence I recommend this manuscript for publication in the present form.