Dye-sensitized Photocatalyst of Sepiolite for Organic Dye Degradation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper of Keiko Sasaki and co-workers deals with the analyses of sepiolite materials for the degradation process of different benchmark dyes under visible light. Overall, the language is sufficiently good throughout the manuscript even if it could be implemented in some parts.
The authors investigated different dyes with various size and charges, i.e. anionic or cation colorants. The latter are degraded much more effectively compared to anionic ones. The irradiation of the sample lead to a higher degradation of the dyes, no matter the size or the nature of the colorant. Sasaki and co-workers also investigated the mechanism of the degradation through some well known reference molecules.
I appreciate the effort of the authors but the paper heavily lacks for novelty. It is my opinion that it resemble a (very good) laboratory report and this is not enough to assure the publication in Catalysts.
Author Response
Thank you very much for positive comments about the present research work. We gratefully appreciate to the reviewer for your constructive comments and advices on submitted manuscript. Based on the question about the lacks of the novelty of the present, we have uploaded the file of the explanation for the concerned comment of word processor on the journal's website.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments:
Authors reported the self-sensitized photocatalyst of sepiolite for organic dye degradation. The experiments have been carefully conducted. Although authors have done various characterization, unfortunately, the novelty of the study is not well documented, and the authors have not shown how the material contributes to its advancement in new scientific understanding of dye degradation or practical improvement compared to many other materials that have been reported. Also, this manuscript looks like thesis write-up. An in-depth investigation is required for the organic dye degradation application. Below are some of the concerns that the authors should explain or pay attention to:
1. XRD spectra should be indexed for a clear understanding of the structural analysis.
2. The authors need to compare and provide the performance of as-prepared materials with the existing reported photocatalysis materials also sepiolite composite.
3. Authors should test the stability test.
4. Authors should provide the images of dye degradation experiment for the clear evidence.
5. It would be better to provide the Ct/C0 vs t graph for clear evidence.
6. In title mentioned that “Self-sensitized photocatalyst” but there is no clear discussion. It would be better to explain how its act as a self-sensitized photocatalyst.
7. Language should be polished. Crosscheck the usage of units and symbols.
Author Response
Thank you very much for positive comments about the present research work. We gratefully appreciate to the reviewer for your constructive comments and advices on submitted manuscript. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we have uploaded the file of a point-by-point response comments and the revised manuscript in type of word processor on the journal's website.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This work has been performed according to the "state of the art" and it has offered some appreciable results, even though, nothing is particularly new. Overall, I am in favor of its publication subject to the following revisions.
First, some linguistic remarks. It is advisable to avoid abbreviations in the abstract. Abstract should be a stand alone text and not serve as a list of abbreviations for the rest of the paper. Please, do not make overuse of the definite article "the". For example, drop "the" infront of "visible"in line 9.
The most serious issue arose by this work is that the authors say, if I understand it right, that when RhB is adsorbed on the photocatalyst, part of it is degraded and the rest serves as a sensitizer for the photocatalyst. Here we have not a "self-"sensitization" but a self-contradiction. If the photocatalyst degrades the dye, it will not choose to degrade it by will but sooner of later the dye will be consumed. I suggest to the authors to clarify this point. In any case, the term "self-sensitized" is wrong. The authors must present the matter in a more clear way. For example, "Dye-sensitization of sepiolite during photocatalytic degradation" or anything equivalent....
Author Response
Thank you very much for positive comments about the present research work. We gratefully appreciate to the reviewer for your constructive comments and advices on submitted manuscript. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we have uploaded the file of a point-by-point response comments and the revised manuscript in type of word processor on the journal's website.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I carefully read the revised version the manuscript and I really appreciated the effort made by the authors to reply to reviewers' comments. The authors appropriately discussed on the originality of their manuscript. Yet, I still doubt the manuscript is enough appealing for the audience of Catalysts.
Nevertheless, according also to others reviewers' opinions, I can endorse the publication of this manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive response to our manuscript. All authors are highly thankful to the reviewer for careful evaluation and constructive comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the revised manuscript and have incorporated the comments as suggested by reviewers. The manuscript may be accepted for the publication in Catalysts.
1. It would be better to include the novelty of the present work in the introduction part of revised manuscript for clear understanding of the readers.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive response to our manuscript. All authors are highly thankful to the reviewer for careful evaluation and constructive comments.
In accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, we have added the explanation of the novelty in the introduction part.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
