UV-Light-Driven Enhancement of Peroxidase-Like Activity of Mg-Aminoclay-Based Fe3O4/TiO2 Hybrids for Colorimetric Detection of Phenolic Compounds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The detection of phenolic compounds is of great significance in the field of environmental protection. In this paper, Jang et al. and co-workers developed MgAC-Fe3O4/TiO2 as new and efficient light-activated peroxidase-like nanozymes. The light-activated nanozyme showed a significant enhancement in peroxidase-like catalytic activity under UV-light irradiation. The discussion in the manuscript is integrity and preciseness. Therefore, in my opinion, this manuscript should be published in Chemosensors after major revision. For brevity, only major concerns are listed below.
- The energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS) elemental mapping is necessary to observe the distribution of elements in the
- Figure S2 and Figure S3 in Supplementary Materials are not clear enough, please change these pictures.
- Commonly, the activity of peroxidase is higher in acidic condition. However, the Figure 5 revealed that the nanohybrid of MgAC-Fe3O4/TiO2 have higher activity in neutral condition. Please confirm the experimental results and give a reasonable explanation.
- For further analysis of the enzymatic properties, the kinetic parameters were necessary, such as the important enzyme kinetic parameters of the Michaelis–Menten constant (Km) and maximum initial velocity (Vmax).
- The data and language in the manuscript are not well organized and the logic setup of this manuscript should be improved. Some typo revision is still required as well. For example, line 84: FeCl3.6H2O; there are unnecessary spaces for the unit of x-axis in Figure 6c (m g/m L).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors developed a Mg-aminoclay-based Fe3O4/TiO2 hybrids with UV-light-driven enhancement of peroxidase-like activity and investigated its stability and practicality. which is very interesting. however, there are some questions to be solved: (1) how many phenolic compounds contents are there in tap water solution, and there are many Interfering substances to influence the result of your study; (2) why do authors not to compare Mg-aminoclay-based Fe3O4/TiO2 hybrids with the nanoenzyme in the ability because of the advantages of nanoenzyme in the study to indicate the advanced nature of their research?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors reported the method of synthesis a novel UV-light-activated peroxidase-like nanozyme for the detection well-known pyrocatechol and resorcinol. The manuscript is well-written and the result is worthy of publication. However, some statements still require further justification:
- Please, provide XPS spectra for C,N and Cl. Cl and N may be in residual state and effect to final properties of sensors, also it could help clarify Ti and Fe states.
- Please rescale Figure 3S d and b to better comparison.
- Conclusions should be rewrite and connect to to abstract. Please, be more concrete.
- The recovery in the Table 1 was estimated precisely. Has the certainty of mentioned value physical or chemical sense?
- “The system yielded acceptable CVs below 7% and recoveries of 97–109%”. It would be better to clarify how far from average parameters of other materials in terms of coefficient of variation and recovery rates the proposed system is.
- Did you measured content of amorphous phase in the MgAc-Fe3O4/TiO2-based system (quality/quantity)?
- Could you please discuss reusable of the MgAc-Fe3O4/TiO2-based system?
- 11 self-reference from 31 looks indecently much and jeopardize reputation of journal and authors. Please, use sometimes other honored researcher’s works.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have solved all problems.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I do think that the authors addressed my comments well. I also found that the responses to the other reviewers are convincible. They added enough discussions and extra experimenatal data in the paper to guarantee its acceptance.
It would be better to make conclusions a lit bit sounds to abstract, authors may acсent the key parameters of proposed sensor to the final text of conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
