Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The review by Yan Min et al. entitled “Recent Advancements in Photocatalysis Coupling by External Physical Fields” focus on the recent advances in photocatalysis coupling by external physical fields, including Thermal-coupled Photocatalysis (TCP), Mechanical-coupled Photocatalysis (MCP), and Electromagnetism-coupled Photocatalysis (ECP). In this paper, coupling mechanisms, materials, and applications of external physical fields are reviewed. Specifically, the promotive effect on photocatalytic activity by the external fields is highlighted. This review also provides a detailed and specific reference for photocatalysis coupling by external physical fields in a deep-going way. The study is well-organized, original, and well presented. The topic of study is an urgent need of the hour. Henceforth, is recommended for publication after minor comments:

1.       Introduction is weak. Please add more details, specifically a separate last paragraph in introduction specifying the key scope of study. For example: https://doi.org/10.1080/01614940.2020.1864859, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.136063 & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.130529.

2.       In Figure 1. Schematic diagram of three types of external field-assisted photocatalysis, the writeup in orange color is not readable. Please make it readable.

3.       In Figure 2. (c) Achieved product yield of C2H6O over Cu2O/g-C3N4 on different temperatures [22]. Please resize the frame of the plot to make it align with fig. 1 & 2.

4.       Figure 6. “(a) Photocatalytic H2 evolution activity of pure Zn0.67Cd0.33S and Au@Zn0.67Cd0.33S with different spatial arrangements of Au nanoparticles under visible light irradiation (≥420 nm); blue columns represent the enhancement promoted by plasmonic-Au nanostructures. (b) Illustration for the proximity of semiconductors to the electromagnetic fields of plasmonic Au nanoparticles [38]” is not readable

5.       There is a major flaw in the manuscript. In table, multiple columns have different units, please align the units for comparison purpose. (Mandatory)

6.       In Figure 18 (d), “(d)” is not mentioned.

7.  Please cite some recent literature mentioned above.

8.       In conclusion part, the conclusion writing in paragraph form will be more helpful? What do you think? This is up to authors to make it in paragraph or proceed as it.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a comprehensive review on various external physical fields for improving the photocatalytic activity of the materials. The authors did a systematic review and present the available data very well. However, a reasonable comparison of the methods is missing. This means that in the conclusion, based on the provided data it would be very interesting if authors can comment on the best physical field for water splitting for instance, considering the input and output of the photocatalytic system.

Some minor points:

The quality of some of the figures should be improved.

The figures should be properly cited, considering the copyright issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf