Recent Progress in WS2-Based Nanomaterials Employed for Photocatalytic Water Treatment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper reviewed the WS2 based nanomaterials related research progress in photocatalytic water treatment. The paper has many defects, such as disordered figures, plain statement, lack depth discussion and conclusion. I consider this paper should be rejected at this status.
The section system was too complex, especially for section 2.3.1. Is the fourth and fifth grade section necessary?
The resolution and arrangement for all figures should be modified, for example, Figure 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17 etc. Where was Figure 6 and 8? After Figure 32, but next was Figure 39.
The authors only listed the WS2 related study results in each aspect, however, the important point for a review paper should be discussion and summarization every aspect.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, Yousef and co-workers comprehensively describe recent developments in water treatment using tungsten disulfide (WS2)-based materials as photocatalysts. To the best of my knowledge, it is the first attempt to summarize advances in the photocatalytic degradation of various pollutants in the presence of WS2-based photocatalysts. On the other hand, there are several issues which should be considered before the acceptance of the manuscript for publication in Catalysts:
1. There are few formatting and spelling mistakes, e.g.:
- Figure 4 is shown on page 8. But the next Figure on page 9 is called "Figure 1". The authors should carefully check the numbering of figures in еру captions and in the text in the whole manuscript.
- Figures on pages 9, 10, 12, 15, 21,26, and 35 should be re-inserted in the text since they they close the figure captions or the text.
2. It is necessary to add a section regarding the fundamentals of photocatalytic degradation of pollutants in water. The section should include the following: general principles of the photocatalytic degradation, including the mechanism; the formation of main reactive oxygen species during photocatalytic degradation; the most common photocatalysts, including their advantages and disadvantages, and methods for boosting their activity; etc. You could consult and cite the following references: 10.1039/D1NJ04439G; 10.1039/D1GC01690C; 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133228; 10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102671.
3. The advantages of WS2 as a photocatalytic material need to be more clearly defined. It is also necessary to take a more critical approach to the question of the use of this material in photocatalysis. What are the disadvantages of this compound?
4. As a review paper, the authors should add more comments and summaries about this field, rather than only listing the related literatures. More comments like the current research situation, the challenge in this filed, as well as critical analyzing and comparing for the published works should be done.
5. It is necessary to include comparative tables, which will show the main photocatalytic perfomances of the proposed photocatalysts. This will allow readers to more clearly understand the results of research in this field.
6. The conclusion part should be more clear. The main challenges as well as future directions should be mentioned in more details.
7. The reaction mechanism for the various reactions should discussed more in details.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, I appreciate the corrections and the improuvments you made in the paper.
I thinks that the paper is well organized and understendable.
I suggest the publication in Catalysts
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We really appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper can be accepted now.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your careful revewing of our manuscript. We really appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving our work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all the comments I originally proposed. I would recommend the acceptance.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your careful reviewing of our manuscript. We really appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving our work.
