Application of Zn1−xCdxS Photocatalyst for Degradation of 2-CP and TC, Catalytic Mechanism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the manuscript contains some new results, the level of their presentation is rather low. Generally, the scientific content is very modest. The English grammar and composition are also weak, the authors used several inappropriate words. Even the evaluation of the results is wrong in numerous cases. The notes, questions, and indications of errors can be seen in the attached manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The author can value add to the paper by calculating the particle size from the SEM and crystallite size from XRD.
2. What is effect of temperature over the degradation process?
3. What will happen if the cooling is not carried out during the degradation?
4. Please modify the conclusion based on the optimized results.
5. Please include similar work as references in all section of 3.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors undertook the Application of Zn1-xCdxS photocatalyst for degradation of 2-CP and TC, catalytic mechanism and electrochemical hydrogen precipitation performance 4 study. The manuscript lacks the novelty. There are lot of articles already published related to Zn and CdS. I have some queries
1. Why authors use CdS? CdS might be increase the toxicity in water, Please explain?
2. What about the band gap of Zn and ZnCdS. Please incorporate in the revised manuscript.
3. Fig. 3 shows the adsorption TC antibiotics, Please explain which property of the materials are responsible for adsorption, like porosity, and surface charge...
4. Is there any release of Cd ion during photocatalyst process.
5. Authors need to incorporate more literatures in the form of table to compare the photodegradation ability with others.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately, the revised version is a disappointment for the reviewer. Even the suggested/indicated corrections (in the original version) have not been made in all cases (in the revised version), i.e. the revision was very superficial. Besides, some parts of the new texts also contain errors.
Apparently, the scientific content has been extended, but the only useful additional part in this respect is the temperature effect. Tables 1 and 2 (comparisons) could only be reasonable if the irradiation conditions would have been the same. The new Figure 6 is very questionable regarding the right designation of the spectra.
The new text in lines 257-266 is a very general description, while the analysis of reactions 1-12 has not been realized at all, although it would have been very important for the discussion of the mechanism.
The notes, questions, and indications of errors can be seen in the attached manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Following the author 's revision, we believe that the manuscript can be published.
Accept.
Author Response
Thanks for your valuable comments.
