Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors studied "Visible-light-driven BiOBr-TiO2-attapulgite photocatalyst with excellent photocatalytic activity for multiple xanthates". The manuscript is well-written and timely. Still, the work should provide some relevant data to improve the quality of a manuscript before further consideration.

1. It is suggested that the author use a table to compare the results of the material in this paper with the previous works.

2. It is recommended that the author give photocurrent, CV, or EIS under visible light illumination.

3. How the authors can optimize the synthesis conditions of BiOBr-TiO2-Attapulgite composites? How about different molar ratios?

4. Any comments on Figure 3b, f?

5. There is no data in the dark condition before light illumination in Figure 6?

6. In the introduction section, the logic of thinking in introducing the background and purpose of the study is not clear enough, please give more knowledge or the significance of the study. The following references are suggested to cite:

[1] Zou, M., Tan, C., Yang, H., Kuang, D., Nie, Z., & Zhou, H. (2022). Facile preparation of recyclable and flexible BiOBr@ TiO2/PU-SF composite porous membrane for efficient photocatalytic degradation of mineral flotation wastewater. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 50, 103127.

[2] Ta, Q. T. H., Tran, N. M., Tri, N. N., Sreedhar, A., & Noh, J. S. (2021). Highly surface-active Si-doped TiO2/Ti3C2Tx heterostructure for gas sensing and photodegradation of toxic matters. Chemical Engineering Journal, 425, 131437.

[3] Sun, J., Jiang, C., Wu, Z., Liu, Y., & Sun, S. (2022). A review on the progress of the photocatalytic removal of refractory pollutants from water by BiOBr-based nanocomposites. Chemosphere, 136107.

7.  The state-of-the-art work is interesting but sometimes poorly described or explained. It would be especially helpful if the authors could include explanations and opinions on important areas for further research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

(catalysts-2745875)

The submitted manuscript (catalysts-2745875) “Visible-light-driven BiOBr-TiO2-attapulgite photocatalyst with excellent photocatalytic activity for multiple xanthates”. The study focused on the BTA ternary photocatalyst demonstrated significantly higher adsorption and photocatalytic degradation performance compared to TiO₂ nanoparticles, BiOBr nanosheets, and BiOBr-TiO₂ heterojunction.

Overall, the results and explanation are reasonable but still needs to be revised with major revision before accepted for publication.

Reviewer comments

1.     It is advised to comprise more information regarding the implication of the research that can be explained to state the novelty of the present work.

2.     Do not use short forms in the keywords.

3.     Section 2, the materials section can be included in main file and requires including a purity percentage for each precursor used.

4.     Figure 2, The author requires to add EDS analysis or elemental mapping to confirm the elements present in final product.

5.     Figure 1 b, it is suggested to smooth the noise level from both peaks to confirm the precise modification from both samples.

6.     It is suggested to add SAED pattern from TEM to confirm the anatase or rutile phase of TiO₂.

7.     The XPS section require more explanation for each element “Bi, Br, O, Ti, and Si”.

8.     “BTA composites with different dosages to 20 mg/L” 20 mg/L amount is optimal amount or randomly selected?

9.     The kinetics of the SEX degradation must be provided.

10.  Specify the amount of scavengers that were utilized in the scavenger studies so that it could help reproduce the results.

11.  Justify the difference between the hot filtration test and scavenging test in the study.

12.  The author should make the necessary modifications, addition, citation, and responses to the queries raised above before acceptance.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language in the main text seems OK but author are advised to crosscheck the grapmmatical errors in revised version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

The manuscript “Visible-light-driven BiOBr-TiO₂-attapulgite photocatalyst with excellent photocatalytic activity for multiple xanthates” has reported the synthesis of a ternary photocatalyst, BTO (BiOBr-TiO₂-attapulgite) and its application in photo-degradation of xanthates. This ternary photocatalyst is a good combination that has taken full advantage of each component, making a photocatalyst having a large surface area, visible light absorption, and the spatial distribution of electron-hole pairs. As a result, the photocatalytic performance of this ternary photocatalyst is much better than that of every single component, and BiOBr-TiO₂ binary composite, promising an application of BiOBr-TiO₂-attapulgite in photocatalytic degradation of xanthates in wastewater. The manuscript has been well prepared with sufficient data to support the claims. Therefore, I would support its publication in Catalysts. Below is some suggestion for authors to further polish the paper.

 

1. The UV-VIS spectrum is suggested to show visible light absorption.

 

2. SEM images with higher magnification are suggested to show the samples’ features. The morphology of the particle or nanosheet, and the feature size are not clearly presented.

 

3. The presentation of Figure 2h is not good. It is very challenging to see the element distribution from this Figure. It is better to separately present the distribution of each element.

 

4. Titles of 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 are the same.

 

5. The resolution of Figure 6 needs to be improved. Now Figure 6 seems shadowed and not clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been carefully revised, addressed all the comments/suggestions proposed by the reviewers, and is now suitable for publication.