Chalcogenides and Chalcogenide-Based Heterostructures as Photocatalysts for Water Splitting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Khan and Rahman reviewed the synthesis and application of metal chalcogenides as photocatalysts for water splitting. This manuscript could be considered for publication after addressing below comments:
(1) The title needs to be revised. ‘’Selected’’ chalcogenides sound weird, in fact the reviewed chalcogenides including 8 metals so not sure what it means by selected.
(2) Clarification is needed to explain how this review article is different to other relevant published review articles.
(3) A new section on general strategies in synthesis and modification of metal chalcogenides must be added before discussing more specific on each metal in section 2 - Binary chalcogenides and their photocatalytic water splitting activities. This is a missing part that would improve the quality of the manuscript.
(4) Conclusions and future perspective could be combined. In conclusion, the authors should discuss for example, among the TMD, which one is the best performing photocatalysts, and why. How further improvement can be achieved? For future perspective, the discussion in too general, and should be revised to be more specific. The solution to the current problems or research direction should be addressed in more details and specific. There are sentences stated ‘’should be addressed, explored etc.’’, which the authors should discuss/state the approaches?
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Khan and Rahman reviewed the synthesis and application of metal chalcogenides as photocatalysts for water splitting. This manuscript could be considered for publication after addressing below comments:
Reply: Thank you very much for your comments. We appreciate your feedback and recommendation of our manuscript for acceptance and publication in the Catalysts.
(1) The title needs to be revised. ‘’Selected’’ chalcogenides sound weird, in fact the reviewed chalcogenides including 8 metals so not sure what it means by selected.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed the title of the manuscript to ‘Chalcogenides and chalcogenide-based heterostructures as photocatalysts for water splitting’.
(2) Clarification is needed to explain how this review article is different to other relevant published review articles.
Reply: This review will assist the readers to obtain and overview the different classification of chalcogenides (namely, binary, ternary and chalcogenide heterostructures) and the recent progress in the application of chalcogenides and chalcogenide-based heterostructures as photocatalysts for water splitting. Apart from that, the mechanisms for water splitting for different chalcogenide heterostructures involved have also been proposed. This will undoubtedly promote the further development and research in this area. This has been included is the first paragraph of page 6.
(3) A new section on general strategies in synthesis and modification of metal chalcogenides must be added before discussing more specific on each metal in section 2 - Binary chalcogenides and their photocatalytic water splitting activities. This is a missing part that would improve the quality of the manuscript.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a new sub-heading “General synthesis approaches of chalcogenides” on page 6.
(4) Conclusions and future perspective could be combined. In conclusion, the authors should discuss for example, among the TMD, which one is the best performing photocatalysts, and why. How further improvement can be achieved? For future perspective, the discussion in too general, and should be revised to be more specific. The solution to the current problems or research direction should be addressed in more details and specific. There are sentences stated ‘’should be addressed, explored etc.’’, which the authors should discuss/state the approaches?
Reply: Thank you for your suggestions. However, we decided to keep the conclusion and prospects separated because in the conclusion we summarized the overall findings while in the prospects, we addressed the challenges and suggested some solutions to tackle the mentioned problems. Moreover, we cannot conclude the best TMD in the conclusion because we have also included some group III metal-based chalcogenides.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have reviewed some chalcogenides for water splitting reaction. Overall, I can not recommend the work for publication, because there are numerous similar reviews on the field in the literature and the work does not add any improvement as compared to them.
Author Response
Reply: Thank you. We have revised the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions of Reviewers 1 and 3. We hope that these revisions and the improved manuscript will be satisfactory.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors review the development of binary and ternary chalcogenides and their heterostructures on solar hydrogen production. The critical factors on photocatalytic properties of chalcogenides were also highlighted. Finally, the prospects of chalcogenide-based photocatalysts are provided and discussed. It can be accepted after revision. The following aspects need to be further improved:
1. The abstract should be reorganized to emphasize the highlights of this manuscript.
2. In this manuscript, the comparison between chalcogenides and other materials (for instance, MOFs, COFs, Bi2WO6, C3N4, and etc) should be presented. Some related literatures in photocatalytic field should be cited such as doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.128022; doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125822; doi.org/10.1007/s11426-022-1350-1; doi: 10.1016/S1872-2067(22)64106-8; doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119174; doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.128722; doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(20)63769-X; doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2020.10.073
3. Given the limited content, I recommend the third part of this manuscript does not need further subdivision.
4. Prospect is a mental picture of a future or anticipated event, therefore, I recommend replacing ‘Future Prospects’ with ‘Prospects’ in the manuscript.
5. Considering the timeliness of the review articles, more articles published in recent years should be summarized.
Author Response
In this manuscript, the authors review the development of binary and ternary chalcogenides and their heterostructures on solar hydrogen production. The critical factors on photocatalytic properties of chalcogenides were also highlighted. Finally, the prospects of chalcogenide-based photocatalysts are provided and discussed. It can be accepted after revision. The following aspects need to be further improved:
Reply: Thank you very much for your positive comments and suggestions. We appreciate your feedback and recommendation of our manuscript for acceptance and publication in the Catalysts.
- The abstract should be reorganized to emphasize the highlights of this manuscript.
Reply: Thank you. We have accordingly revised the abstract.
- In this manuscript, the comparison between chalcogenides and other materials (for instance, MOFs, COFs, Bi2WO6, C3N4, and etc) should be presented. Some related literatures in photocatalytic field should be cited such as doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.128022; doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125822; doi.org/10.1007/s11426-022-1350-1; doi: 10.1016/S1872-2067(22)64106-8; doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.119174; doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.128722; doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(20)63769-X; doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2020.10.073
Reply: Thank you. We have cited the relevant literatures at the appropriate places.
- Given the limited content, I recommend the third part of this manuscript does not need further subdivision.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the sub-division under the ternary chalcogenides.
- Prospect is a mental picture of a future or anticipated event, therefore, I recommend replacing ‘Future Prospects’ with ‘Prospects’ in the manuscript.
Reply: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the ‘Future Prospects’ to ‘Prospects’ on page 28.
- Considering the timeliness of the review articles, more articles published in recent years should be summarized.
Reply: Thank you. We have added more articles published in the recent years.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This revised manuscript can be accepted for publication
