In Situ Metallic Bi-Modified (110)BiOBr Nanosheets with Surface Plasmon Resonance Effect for Enhancing Photocatalytic Performance Despite of Larger Optical Band Gap
, Xin Li 1,2,3, Xiaoyan Liu 1,2,3, Lili Yang 1,2,3, Maobin Wei 1,2,3,* and Huilian Liu 1,2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor Concerns
1) The abstract of the paper does not cover any motivation, reason for interest, or key findings/conclusion from the manuscript. It reads more like a table of contents listing experiments and results more than a succinct summary of the manuscript. I recommend the authors to re-write this section, making it shorter, to highlight their motivation, key findings, discussion of the mechanisms, and conclusions. A good example of an abstract on a similar topic is "Tuan A. Vu, Canh D. Dao, Thuy T.T. Hoang, Kien T. Nguyen, Giang H. Le, Phuong T. Dang, Hoa T.K. Tran, Tuyen V. Nguyen, Highly photocatalytic activity of novel nano-sized Ag3PO4 for Rhodamine B degradation under visible light irradiation, Materials Letters, Volume 92, 2013, Pages 57-60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2012.10.023."
2) The authors mention the Surface Plasmon Resonance effect in the title as well as in the introduction. Since the finding of the manuscript is that the SPR enhancement expected from the Bi nanoparticles was not observed, the discussion of SPR effect warrants more discussion. The authors can refer to some good examples of discussion of SPR effect like "Jingxuan Hao, Hao He, Shuaiqi Gong, Jinchen Fan, Qunjie Xu, and YuLin Min, WN Coupled with Bi Nanoparticles to Enhance the Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance Effect for Photocatalytic Hydrogen Evolution, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, Vol 13/Issue 17, 2021"
3) In several parts of the paper, the table/figure referenced does not contain the information they are discussing. Eg. In line 223-225, the authors reference Table S4 for the data discussed. However, this information is in fact, present in Table 1.
4) In the conclusions, please include discussion of the future scope for the results you demonstrated. RhB is just an indicator of photocatalytic activity, it would be good to see direct applications in which this may be tested.
Minor Concerns
1) The quality of figures needs some attention for improvement. Specific examples below
a) Figure 6 is low resolution and there are other lines that are visible apart from the labeled ones which are not clearly marked. Please improve the resolution on the image.
b) In Figure 7, the image in 7B overlaps with the X axis in 7A making it hard to understand. Please align the images better.
c) In Figure 8, the authors use black color for the degradation efficiency of (102)BiOBr with No scavenger but red color for the same metric for (110)BiOBr and Bi (1.0 mmol)/(110)BiOBr. This difference in color is misleading and generates the impression that the no scavenger condition for (102)BiOBr is somehow different. Please use one uniform color scheme or indicate why differences are present.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language used in the paper is, in several places, convoluted and has incorrect usage of English grammar. I recommend the authors to revise the language and make use of editorial services to improve the quality of their submission.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript investigated the photocatalytic activity of facet dependant BiOBr nanoplates and their Bi modified counterparts. The work needs to be revised in order to make it publishable. The specific comments were given below.
1. In line 140, Fig. 2B, 2C and 2D should be written as Fig. 2C, 2D and 2E. In line 198, (110) BiOBr should be replaced by (102) BiOBr. In line 211, one of the (102) BiOBrs should be replaced by (110) BiOBr.
2. Authors should explain the formation of metallic Bi in BiOBr.
3. Exact % removal of RhB in dark needs to be mentioned.
4. The introduction should be modified with sufficient background, research gaps and current investigation.
5. The importance of BiOX materials in photocatalytic pollutant degradation needs to be addressed in the introduction section. Authors may follow below mentioned paper.
“Boosted photocatalytic accomplishment of 3D/2D hierarchical structured Bi4O5I2/g-C3N4 p-n type direct Z-scheme heterojunction towards synchronous elimination of Cr(VI) and tetracycline, Diamond Related Mater. 142 (2024) 110834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diamond.2024.110834.”
6. Fig. 6 (A) should be drawn in such a way that spectrum of all the samples are clearly observed.
7. Authors should explain the appearance of three peaks at 531.5 eV, 532.5 eV and 530.0 eV in the O1s spectra.
8. Although authors have investigated photocatalytic degradation of RhB, the introduction section lacks in the advantages of semiconductor based photocatalysis. Therefore, authors should briefly discuss these. Following papers may be referred.
(i) Recent updates in modification strategies for escalated performance of Graphene/MFe2O4 heterostructured photocatalysts towards energy and environmental application, J. Alloys Compd. 960 (2023) 170576, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.170576.
9. Authors should redraw Fig. 7 (b) for clear visibility. Discussion on PL spectra needs to be elaborated and specific.
10. The reasons for highest photocurrent value shown by Bi(1.0)/(110)BiOBr needs to be described.
11. The band edge position values of the three photocatalysts should be calculated and discussed in the text.
12. The toxic effects of dyes, their contamination sources and advantages of photocatalytic degradation of dyes should be highlighted in the introduction section.
13. Conclusion section should be more focussed with the scope.
14. Authors should report major findings in the abstract.
15. The grammatical, typological and syntax errors in the manuscript should be rectified.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeeds improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have satisfactorily addressed the major and minor concerns brought up initially. They have made significant improvements to the structure and quality of the paper. I appreciate their positive response to the feedback and subsequent improvement in the quality of the paper
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are still some minor spelling/grammar issues but these can be addressed in the editing process. Thank you for making significant improvements to the language in the paper
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have modifiied the manuscript and it may be accepted in its present form.
