Modified Resazurin Ink Testing and the Fluorescence Probe Method for Simple and Rapid Photocatalytic Performance Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors proposed a novel method of evaluation of photocatalysts. It can be accepted after minor revision. Some words are redundant and can be deleted. For example, "Here" in the section 2.3. The references are very old. The authors may provide some new references via the discussion of the merit or disadvantages of current method.And there are only 28 references in the manuscript. Some sentences are too long. For example, This is a very long sentence-> "On applying 131 Rz ink prepared using standard methods to both the glass substrate and the 1000 rpm-T1 132 sample, the blue colour was retained on the glass substrate (Figure 4(a)), while it disap- 133 peared from the 1000 rpm-T1 sample (Figure 4(b))." 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some words are redundant and can be deleted. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors’ manuscript titled "Modified Resazurin Ink Testing and the Fluorescence Probe Method for Simple and Rapid Photocatalytic Performance Evaluation", focused on interesting and actual topic. However, some concerns must be solved prior to the publication:

1. In the Abstract the authors should add 1-2 sentences about the background of the research conducted in order to highlight the importance of this research. Additionally, the authors should highlight the results more concretely and not narratively with too much discussion and without the expected future trends regarding this research.
2. In the Introduction the authors should add background information regarding the topic of this research and highlight the novelty of their work, with some state-of-the-art references in order to get information about the drawbacks of the existing processes and to see the originality of the authors’ study. In addition, the authors should highlight the aim of the study and the conducted experiments.
3. In the Results section the authors should put the Figures right after the results they discussed, e.g. Figures about SEM micrographs should be put right after the text about the SEM results, etc. Also, the authors should, if it is possible, to provide better quality for Figure 1 d, e, and f.
4. Why did the Authors choose acetaldehyde for the photocatalytic performance investigation?
5. In the Materials and Methods section, the Authors should clarify the reason of the pretreatment of the samples with UV irradiation (lines 252-254).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated the effectiveness of the Rz ink test and fluorescence probe methods as alternative methods for air purification performance evaluation. However, the following issues need to be resolved.

1. The latest research progress of fluorescence probe method for evaluating photocatalytic activity has not been summarized. Most of the references are from many years ago.
2. The fluorescence probe method is presented in this work as a simple alternative, but its potential limitations are not fully discussed. For example, fluorescence probe methods may be affected by factors such as sample surface morphology and light scattering. The authors discuss these potential limitations and offer suggestions for possible solutions or improvements.
3. The size of Figure 8b is very large and does not fit in with the other figures. Moreover, the error of linear fitting is large.
4. The photocatalytic performance mentioned in the manuscript mainly refers to which aspect of application, and only evaluating the generation of hydroxyl radical is not enough to evaluate its photocatalytic performance, especially the application direction is not determined.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a problem with the presentation of this manuscript, especially for an uninitiated reader.  The authors claim that in the present method the combination of a fluorescent probe with OH radical formation will lead to a better and easier detection of the degradation process. I do not see how this will be done. I suggest that the authors give right from the beginning, that is in the Introduction,  the chemical mechanism under which the degradation process on the one hand and  the detection procees on the other hand  is being  carried out.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors improved the manuscript and it is now suitable for publication. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The Authors improved the manuscript and it is now suitable for publication.

Response: Thank you for re-evaluating our revised manuscript and finding it suitable for publication. Your constructive feedback has significantly improved our paper. We appreciate your insightful suggestions that helped us enhance the quality of our research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all issues. I suggest it be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors have addressed all issues. I suggest it be accepted in present form.

Response: Thank you for your thorough re-evaluation of our revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition that we have successfully addressed all the issues you raised in your initial review.Your constructive feedback throughout the review process has significantly improved the quality of our paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is difficult to understand and the authors did not respond to my suggestion to give a  simple description of the mechanism of OH radical trapping and detection. 

Author Response

Comments 1: This article is difficult to understand and the authors did not respond to my suggestion to give a  simple description of the mechanism of OH radical trapping and detection.

Response: Thank you for your continued evaluation of our manuscript. We apologize that our previous revisions did not adequately address your concerns regarding the mechanism of OH radical trapping and detection.

We understand your point that the article remains difficult to understand, particularly regarding these mechanisms. Indeed, while we added references to the Introduction, we recognize that we should have provided a clearer and more direct explanation of the OH radical trapping and detection mechanism as you suggested.

To address this issue, we have added simple explanations of the OH radical trapping and detection mechanisms to both Section 1. Introduction and Section 4. Materials and Methods.

We believe these additions make the paper more accessible to readers unfamiliar with this technique. Thank you for highlighting this important aspect, as your suggestions have significantly improved the clarity of our manuscript.

Please refer to the highlighted parts in Section 1. Introduction and Section 4. Materials and Methods.