Mussel Shell-Supported Yttrium-Doped Bi2MoO6 Composite with Superior Visible-Light Photocatalytic Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, a series of Y-doped Bi2MoO6/CMS were prepared and doping Y was found to be able to improve the photocatalytic decoloring ability to RhB. The manuscript is recommend a major revision considering the following problems.
(1) There are some improper expresses. For example, the authors stated” a characteristic diffraction peak of Y3+ was not observed, which could be attributed to the low concentration of Y3+ ions. Another possible explanation could be the replacement of Bi3+ ions by Y3+ ions due to their similar ionic radii, resulting in the absence of distinct Y3+ peaks in the XRD patterns”. XRD method can not characterize the information of ions. You can state that there is no XRD peak of yttrium compounds.
(2) caption of Figure 5: (f) should be 1.0 %Y-BC.
(3) “The optical properties of the as-prepared samples were measured using UV–vis diffuse reflectance spectroscopy, as shown in Figure 7”, wherein Figure 7 should be Figure 6.
（4） the authors stated that “This result could be attributed to the fact that Y doping leads to the formation of new defect sites and oxygen vacancies, which, in turn, could facilitate charge carrier separation”. The existence of oxygen vacancies should be verified using thee-peak fitting of the O 1s XPS peak in Figure 2d and also using ESR spectrum (referring to Figure S 11 and S10 in Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2203638) .
(5) the authors stated “CMS synergistically enhanced electron transport with Y3+ ions”. Experimental data or references should be offered to support the conclusion that CMS and Y3+ ions enhance the electron transport.
(6) the authors stated” the electrons were captured by Y3+ ions”. Why and how could Y3+ ions capture electrons? Experimental data or references should be offered to support the conclusion. Similarly, in the proposed reaction paths, the steps that CMS and Y3+ receive electrons and the formation of Y2+ lack evidence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study, the authors prepared a novel ternary Y-doped Bi2MoO6 photocatalyst utilizing mussel shell as supporter for the degradation of RhB. Their work provides a feasible synthesis for nanocomposite photocatalysts for effectively eliminating dye in aqueous. Generally, this whole manuscript was well organized and written, however, there are other comments that need to be addressed follows:
1. “0.5% Y-BC” in line 23, should be written in full for the first time.
2. “long” and “longstanding” are the same meaning in line 30, you can delete “long”.
3. “improve” should de deleted in line 70, which was reused.
4. “Finally, the as-prepared sample was filtered, washed with ethanol and deionized water several times, dried at 60℃ under vacuum, and pyrolyzed at 400℃ under N2 (heating rate: 10℃/min; retention time: 2 hours) to produce the Y-doped Bi2MoO6/CMS composite” in line 103-106, please add the concentration of ethanol and the flow rate of N2. And “2 hours” should be changed into “2 h”.
5. “to a photochemical reactor” should be changed into “in a photochemical reactor” in line 129.
6. It is recommended that the authors supplement TOC and LC-MS-MS analysis in subsequent studies to further investigate the degradation of RhB.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the results of this research are conveyed thoughtfully and completely, and they are consistent with the experimental findings. However, the authors failed to explain and draw out the novelty of the work, this aspect needs to be improved. This work is worthwhile to be publish in this journal after major revision. The following issues should be addressed:
1. Introduction is well-organized but the importance and novelty of the research should be highlighted and more clearly stated. The authors should give some examples of works in the bibliography, to clear the advantage of their work in comparison with those works.
2. Maybe the author should compare their results clearly with other reported works, highlighting the advantage and disadvantages.
3. Many spelling and formatting typos in this paper, and the authors should check and revise them thoroughly.
4. In experimental part, some relative reports references about synthesis of metal oxides from plants could help: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-023-02622-y, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.126361.
5. Experimental part. Please indication initial concentration of pollutant. And what is the average concentration of this pollutant in wastewater that should be clean up?
6. Authors did not performed experiments on water purification using real wastewater. It is recommended to performed experiments on real wastewater, since there are many components that can significantly affect both catalytic properties and contaminate the catalyst.
7. Authors should discuss how prepared composites can be used in real experiments. Сan the composite contaminate water, and does it make it dangerous for human consumption. How can the composite be removed from the water after purification?
8. In Introduction part, some relative reports references about using of different oxides in photocatalysis process could help: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-023-02604-0, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16062170, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-022-02389-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.03.067, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c03735, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c03693.
9. In XRD data, the authors should add more details about the XRD, such as crystalline size, lattice parameters etc.
10. The authors should measure the stability of the materials. The authors should measure the XRD or SEM after the stability test.
Hence, I recommend it accepted for publication after Major revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the authors have addressed all my comments and can be accepted after a minor revision: the journal name of the reference 58 should be "Advanced Functional Materials" rather than "Research article".
Author Response
Point 1: The journal name of the reference 58 should be "Advanced Functional Materials" rather than "Research article".
Response 1: Thanks for your comments and reminder. We have corrected it in Line 577.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accepted in the present form
Author Response
Thanks for your recognition of our work. Without your insightful comments and constructive suggestions, our manuscript could not have been improved so substantially.
