Construction of Cu₂O-ZnO/Cellulose Composites for Enhancing the Photocatalytic Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some suggestions for improving the article are as follows.
1- Are the defects of zinc oxide nanoparticles is their agglomeration!?"ZnO nanoparticles are prone to agglomeration..."?? How has Cu2O solved this problem?
2- What is the role of hydrazine in synthesis?
3- Add the synthesis schematic to the article.
4- The article is not in journal format. Fonts are different in different parts.
5- The authors should discuss more about the synergistic effect.
6- TEM images should be added to the article.
7- How many nanometers is the size of zinc oxide nanoparticles?
8- Is the synthesis controlled and the result of your creativity? How did you optimize the precursor amounts?
9- What are the results for other amounts of copper oxide and zinc oxide?
10- How are the amounts of materials optimized in Cu2O-ZnO/cellulose?
11- What effect does increasing or decreasing the amount of cellulose have on photocatalytic performance?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors investigated the photocatalytic activity of  Cu₂O-ZnO/cellulose composites. They demonstrated that the optimized material can photodegrade 96% of methyl orange (MO) within 80 min under UV-vis irradiation. The following issues should be considered:

1. There are several formatting and grammatical errors, which need to be corrected.

2. Abstract should not use abbreviations (for instance, MO) or at least explain them.

3. The photocatalyst exhibited low stability. What are the main reasons and routes to improve the stability and reusability?

4. Studying the activity only in the decomposition of MO is clearly insufficient. The degradation of other emerging pollutants (e.g., antibiotics, phenolic compounds, etc.) should be investigated.

5. Comparison with previously published results (in the form of Table) should be presented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is acceptable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript. The acceptance is recommended.