Using a Surface-Response Approach to Optimize the Photocatalytic Activity of rGO/g-C3N4 for Bisphenol A Degradation
and Eduardo Bessa Azevedo 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors designed rGO/g-C3N4 photocatalyst for bisphenol A photodegradation. A possible photocatalytic mechanism was proposed. After carefully reviewing this manuscript, I think that the paper needs to go through a major revision before it can be considered for publication. Some specific questions are listed as follows:
1. There are some mistakes in the submitted manuscript, such as “GrO” in XRD pattern and “GrO” in FT-IR spectra. The authors should carefully check the overall manuscript.
2. To confirm the OPTIMIZED rGO/g-C3N4 sample, other composites with various weight ratios between rGO and g-C3N4 should be also provided with the detailed characterizations and discussions.
3. How to confirm the formation of rGO in rGO/g-C3N4 composite. Please provide the direct evidence.
4. The explanation for Table 2 is missing. I suggest the detailed degradation curves supplied in the revised manuscript in the presence of different scavengers.
5. To deeply investigate the transfer, separation and lifetimes performances of photogenerated charge carriers, photo-electrochemical curves, photoluminescence (PL) and time-resolved PL should be provided in the revised manuscript with the detailed discussions.
6. The current description for CONCLUSIONS section is nonstandard. Please re-write this part.
7. The XRD patterns, XPS spectra and SEM images before and after photocatalytic cycling experiments should be supplied to verify the structural stability of photocatalyst.
8. Some recent references about photocatalytic systems should be added. (Nature, 2023, 613, 66-70; Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 2023, 139, 167-188; Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 2023, 321, 122082; Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 2022, 114, 81-89; Chemical Engineering Journal, 2023,453, 139775)
There are some grammatical mistakes in the submitted manuscript. The authors should carefully check the overall manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the author obtained rGO/g-C3N4 photocatalyst through ultrasonic treatment and demonstrated excellent photocatalytic degradation activity for bisphenol A. I feel this manuscript has not reached the quality requirement of this journal and will not interest the broadest section of our readership. This article needs to be major revised before accepted.
(1) Supporting information missing in the manuscript. The author has mentioned different figures in the manuscript, but in order to verify and check the supporting information is missing.
(2) Fine HRTEM could be used to better analyze the structure of rGO/g-C3N4 and observe the composition of interfaces.
(3) It is recommended to use XPS to test the chemical elements and valence structure of rGO/g-C3N4 and g-C3N4 for comparison.
(4) There are numerous writing issues in the manuscript, such as the absence of superscripts and subscripts, and inconsistent formatting. The author is requested to review the entire text and make revisions.
(5) Why did the author not prepare different ratios of rGO/g-C3N4 photocatalysts to determine which ratio has the best catalytic effect?
(6) The Tauc plot equation and calculation process of VB and CB have not been adequately described.
(7) In order to verify the stability of photocatalytic materials, cyclic experiments are necessary.
(8) The authors comparede the results with previous reported works in the form of comparison table, such as https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28103989, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.materresbull.2022.112064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115770.
(9) The manuscript does not provide a photocatalytic mechanism diagram for the photocatalytic degradation of bisphenol A.
(10) ESR can be mutually confirmed with the results of capture experiments, which can help you verify the photocatalytic process and mechanism.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is devoted to the study of photodegradation of bisphenol using graphene-modified carbon nitride. The article is made at a high level with a large amount of evidence-based experimental material. The article can be published with the correction of minor comments:
1. Use the unified form of the radical symbol notation - either to the right of the formula or to the left.
2. Correct if it's a typo
%rGO, sonication time, and N2H4:rGO weight ratio were assessed. Second, a 316
3. Specify legend for Figure SM2 (no color bar)
4. index error
simple mixture of g-C3N4 and rGO at the same content (16% rGO):
5. Decipher the abbreviations:
CHNSO
6. Why introduce abbreviations when they are not used in the text? Abbreviations are intended to shorten the text of an article, not to increase its length.
VALME
ADHD
ESI
and others
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all the comments, the quality of this revised manuscript has been largely improved. However, there are two mistakes existed in Ref. 8 and 10. It should be "J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2022,114, 81-89; J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2023, 139, 167-188" The authors should carefully check all references. Thus, I would like to recommend this manuscript for publication in Catalysts with a minor Revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think it could be accepted in present form
