Polymer-Based Immobilized FePMo₁₂O₄₀@PVP Composite Materials for Photocatalytic RhB Degradation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      There are some format errors that the authors should correct e.g. line 32 erase “Elias”.

2.      Figure 2. The Y axis should be labeled as “Relative Intensity”.

3.      SEM Images are quite dark and of not high enough magnification. The authors should at least correct that (the fact that there are too dark) or replace them with more clear ones and of higher magnification if possible.

4.      TEM Images are quite dark the authors should correct that or replace them with more clear ones.

5.      The authors claim cost-effectiveness for their photocatalysts. In order to claim that a cost analysis should be performed.

6.      The photocatalytic results are relatively good but not better than other photocatalysts in the existing literature. I can not clearly see the novelty of your work please make it more evident.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is good enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript deals with the synthesis of the photocatalyst FePMo12O40@PVP. The  activity of the system was intended to be demonstrated with rodhamine B degradation and significant characterization was conducted. The following issues must me addressed before being accepted for publication.

 

1.        Write in present tense the results and discussion. Example: L. 77. Fig. 1 shows…

2.        The manuscript requires writing english revision. Example: L. 81.

3.        Is the time given in L. 163 correct? 0 min? Please clarify.

4.        Include units for the kinetic constant value given in L. 166.

5.        Some blank experiments are required, one only under photolysis, one only with PVP without light and another one only with PVP and with light. It is especially worrying that no photo-activity  of FePMo12O40 is shown in figure 6 a.

6.        Discuss the activation and deactivation mechanism.

7.        Discuss further the effect of pH, note that within 5 and 7 the reaction rate is practically the same while in the rest of pH there is a significant reduction after adsorption.

8.        Include a table with the calculated pseudo-first order constants and the corresponding determination coefficients. Take into account that according to fitting equation, the lines should cross the origin.

9.        According to your results, you are only removing the color of the solution which does not seem relevant in the context of advanced oxidation process. Please explain the relevance of your results in the context of pollutants removal.

10.  Re-write the conclusions section since some conclusions are not supported by the presented results.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Writing must be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript offers original research with interesting findings in the field of photocatalysis using POMs/PVP-type composites under visible light. However, it exhibits several flaws that need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publication:

(1)    A graphical abstract illustrating the role of each component in the composite for the degradation of the MO is required.

(2)    The text should include the photoactivity results of the reference materials FePMo12O40 alone and PVP alone. These results should be presented either in the main text or as supporting information.

(3)    The abstract and conclusions do not address critical aspects such as the mechanism of the reaction, the charge transfer between the two semiconductors, and the reasons behind the higher photocatalytic activity observed with the 2.5g-FePMo12O40 @PVP sample. These points should be thoroughly discussed in the relevant sections of the manuscript or supported by additional characterizations.

(4)    The experimental section requires more detailed descriptions, particularly regarding the synthesis, characterizations, and evaluation of photocatalytic activity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the manuscript can now be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is relatively good.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors properly addressed the raised comments in the first round of revisions. The english grammar and writing still offer room for improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still some minor mistakes. Ex. in conclusions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript improved after the corrections were made.