Solar-Light-Responsive Nanomaterials for the Photoelectrocatalytic Degradation of Stubborn Pollutants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript summarizes recent advances in photoelectrocatalytic degradation with the use of nanostructured photoanodes. The authors widely highlight various approaches to enhance the solar responsiveness of metal-oxide-semiconductor nanomaterials. This provides valuable information and knowledge to researchers involved in PEC water treatment. I suggest publishing this paper after addressing the following points:
1. The resolution of Figure 1.1 is a bit low
2. It would be nice to provide a table summarizing the efficiencies of nanomaterials summarized in the work.
3. References are basically before 2020. Could you add some research work from the last two years?
4. There are many numbers in the text and references that need to be subscripted. Please check and correct them.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript summarizes recent advances in photoelectrocatalytic degradation with the use of nanostructured photoanodes. The authors widely highlight various approaches to enhance the solar responsiveness of metal-oxide-semiconductor nanomaterials. This provides valuable information and knowledge to researchers involved in PEC water treatment. I suggest publishing this paper after addressing the following points:
- The resolution of Figure 1.1 is a bit low
The resolution has been improved
- It would be nice to provide a table summarizing the efficiencies of nanomaterials summarized in the work.
A summary of the efficiencies of the nanomaterials has been presented in Table 1. Thank you
- References are basically before 2020. Could you add some research work from the last two years?
Recent references from 2021 and 2022 have been included
- There are many numbers in the text and references that need to be subscripted. Please check and correct them.
These have been corrected accordingly
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1- In the abstract, the most important gain results must be written
2- In the introduction: the research work was studied and covered very well. However, the introduction must be supported with recent references
3- In result: The SEM results must be supported with EDX analysis
4- In conclusion: The conclusion part was too long. So, it was recommended to reduce and focus the gain results as point by point
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1- In the abstract, the most important gain results must be written
Key findings have been included in the abstract
2- In the introduction: the research work was studied and covered very well. However, the introduction must be supported with recent references
Recent references from 2021 and 2022 have been included
3- In result: The SEM results must be supported with EDX analysis
The SEM images are reproduced from published articles with permission. In these published articles, the EDX images were not presented. Thank you
4- In conclusion: The conclusion part was too long. So, it was recommended to reduce and focus the gain results as point by point
The length has been reduced and point by point approach adopted. Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article provides an overview of nanomaterials for the photoelectrocatalytic degradation. The manuscript is well organised, with reasonable examples and a large workload. However, there are still some suggestions that I would like to see taken on board.
1. In the first paragraph of the INTRODUCTION, many pollutants are listed. Are all of the pollutants mentioned degraded by the photocatalysts in the later section?
2. In the photodegradation experiments, only the degradation rate of the pollutants is mentioned. But a high degradation rate does not mean that the pollutant is completely degraded. Other products may be produced which are still harmful to the environment. Can some literature be cited to show what the degradation products are.
3. Please summarise the common characteristics of photoelectrocatalyst materials in a separate section.
4. Misrepresentation. On line 75, incomplete degradation of organic matter due to photogenerated carrier recombination, say the authors. However, there are other reasons for the incomplete degradation of organic matter, such as the position of the semiconductor energy band, etc.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This article provides an overview of nanomaterials for the photoelectrocatalytic degradation. The manuscript is well organised, with reasonable examples and a large workload. However, there are still some suggestions that I would like to see taken on board.
- In the first paragraph of the INTRODUCTION, many pollutants are listed. Are all of the pollutants mentioned degraded by the photocatalysts in the later section?
The review discussed the degradation of organic pollutants including pharmaceuticlas, organic dyes and phenolic compounds. Hence, the mention of heavy metals in the first paragraph of introduction has been deleted
- In the photodegradation experiments, only the degradation rate of the pollutants is mentioned. But a high degradation rate does not mean that the pollutant is completely degraded. Other products may be produced which are still harmful to the environment. Can some literature be cited to show what the degradation products are.
To establish the degradation and mineralization of the organics, discussion on the determination of intermediate products and the total organic carbon measurements have been added to the manuscript.
- Please summarise the common characteristics of photoelectrocatalyst materials in a separate section.
This has been addressed by adding section 1.2
- Misrepresentation. On line 75, incomplete degradation of organic matter due to photogenerated carrier recombination, say the authors. However, there are other reasons for the incomplete degradation of organic matter, such as the position of the semiconductor energy band, etc.
The statement has been restructured to avoid misrepresentation
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my concerns and I suggest to publish it. Thanks.
