Investigation of Catalytic and Photocatalytic Degradation of Methyl Orange Using Doped LaMnO3 Compounds
and Paulina Vlazan 1
Weiliang Wang
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript has reported the photocatalytic degradation of LaMnO3, either doped with Pd, Ag, or Y. The work is interesting; the manuscript is well-written, has some relevance to the field, and will be a good addition to the process journal. However, I have several comments to improve the manuscript before considering it for publication.
Figure 3 – Please remove the shading on the images (this is not very academic)
Figure 5 is redundant, perhaps combine it with Figure 4 and merge
Why was the pH study limited to 2-5 range?
Any specific reason to choose 12 ppm MO and 120 ppm catalyst concentrations?
How many times were the experiments repeated? It is suggested to include error estimates. Also, please round off the kinetic constants and R2 values to two decimal points.
The degradation mechanism needs to be discussed in more detail. I feel like the current discussion is deficient
Include a table that compares the degradation of MO using similar materials and give a compelling reason to publish this work.
Can this material be recycled?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, LaMnO3 and 1% Pd, Ag or Y-doped perovskite nanomaterials were prepared by sol-gel method, and the catalytic activity of LaMnO3 was evaluated by catalytic degradation of methyl orange. This study has some reference value for researchers in related fields. But the paper needs to be major revision before it can be accepted for publication. The comments are as follows:
1.Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript.
2. In the Figure 6,7, the error bar is missing.
3.The authors should calculate de band gap of LaMnO3 and then improve the mechanism of degradation of MO. Add the UV-Vis DRS characterization. Add the ESR/EPR to identify the ROS.
4.The spaces before and after the hyphen “- ”are inconsistent.
5.Too many keywords.
6.The "0" in CO on line 218 is not subscripted.
7.TEM and HR-TEM were required for the characterization results.
8.Why is the sampling time different for different pH?
9.The reason for the strong peak value of LMO-Pd at 619cm-1 in FT-IR is explained.
10.Why not design a reuse test？
11.Please analyze the photocatalytic products during the photocatalysis process.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have adequately addressed my comments and the manuscript now can be considered for a publication.
