Decorating Zirconium on Graphene Oxide to Design a Multifunctional Nanozyme for Eco-Friendly Detection of Hydrogen Peroxide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The designed probe efficiently catalyzes the oxidation of 3,3′,5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), via hy-droxyl radicals produced due to the decomposition of H2O2; thereby transforming the colorless TMB into blue oxidized TMB within 2 minutes The catalytic mechanism of Zr-GO was verified using a fluorescent probe terephthalic acid and other scavenger experiments. The multifunctional optical probe allows sensitive and selective recognition of H2O2, in a linear range from 100 to 1000 µM with a detection limit of 0.57 µM. The following comments should be addressed;

1. Make sure all abbreviations are written out in full the first time used. This is particularly important in the abstract and in the conclusions, but work through the entire ms carefully from this perspective.

2. The UV-VIS spectra of Zr and Zr-Go, while the FTIR spectra of GO and Zr-GO.

3. In Figure 2 some peaks in GO has not detected in Zr-GO. Why？This needs to be explained in detail.

4. Some relative literatures about D and G bands are suggested to cite in analysis of D and G bands. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2112738; ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 25494-25502; Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 259 (2019) 118085.

5. Did the pH change during the trapping agent experiment? pH value has great influence on performance.

6. The "Introduction" section, should be extended regarding the new finding and papers in this area. Modify the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments:

Manuscript ID: catalysts-1922364

In this work, the author reported the “Decorating Zirconium on graphene oxide to design a multifunctional nanozyme for eco-friendly detection of hydrogen peroxide”. This study's findings will help define the efficient detection of hydrogen peroxide. However, there are major flaws in the manuscript. I recommend its reconsidered after major revision as follows:

1)    It should reconstruct the content abstract and the length of the introduction part. Authors should maintain a single frame of language understanding and phrase maintenance throughout the paper.

2)    Why are these materials important for H₂O₂ detection? Are there some interactions? Please discuss this more.

3)    The author should follow the same style font in all the figures. Ex. Except Fig. 4, all other figures author used “A, B” for denoting; however Fig, 4 represented “a, b”. It should be the same as in all the figures.

4)    What is the redox couple of the Zr-GO and GO samples? The electrochemical surface area of the modified electrode should be explored.

5)    Authors have focused only on the linear range and LOD; calculating and mentioning sensitivity would bring an added advantage to the manuscript

6)    Spaces need to be used correctly; typo mistakes in the use of unit format (such as M, Ω·cm, °C, µL, h…); the formula (including upper and lower indices) should be more formal and keep a consistent number of decimal places.

7)    The comparison table is significant for sensor developments. The author should include recent and more comparisons.

8)    Thermal characterization and explanation are poor; TGA, DSC, and DTG need more explanations to better understand the work. Authors could provide.

9)    The use of subjects such as "we, they" should be avoided, and the passive voice should be preferred as much as possible.

10) Avoid the (extensive) use of trivial statements, overestimated conclusions, etc.

11) The main strength of the current study, which is highly reactive performance and better sensitivity, is not written to elucidate the major contribution. The enhanced properties of this compound should be emphasized in terms of surface reactivity and enhancement to show the advancement.

12) The authors did not explain the limitations of the present study. Should I assume that there are no limitations? It would be nice if they say the future perspectives and their limitations in conclusion, which can attract more readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have performed the revision in a perfect manner. So, I strongly recommend for publication after these few minor corrections.

1.      In the title, the author should use each letter capital or sentence case. Like “Zirconium” is only in capital letter, and others are in small letters.

2.      In line 18, “visual determination,” the author should use scientific English here.

3.      Keywords should be in not more than 5.

4.      There are a few typos and grammar mistakes that should be rectified before publication

·          Line 20 and 21 sentences have grammar mistakes.

·          Line 141: “onto”

·          Line 309 “dI water” to DI water

·          Table 3 fonts should follow the same style.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf