Constructing Z-Scheme 3D WO₃@Co₂SnO₄ Heterojunction as Dual-Photocathode for Production of H₂O₂ and In-Situ Degradation of Organic Pollutants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, Z-scheme 3D WO₃@Co₂SnO₄ heterojunction was constructed as dual-photocathode for the production of H₂O₂ and the decontamination of organic pollutants. Although this material showed good catalytic performance and provided an approach for construction of photoelectric-Fenton system without extra additions, this work was not innovative enough. Additionally, some points regarding the relevant mechanism are not very clear. Several issues should be well addressed:

1. Many researches indicate that the construction of heterojunction can help WO₃ to improve the properties in line 56. What are the advantages of WO₃@Co₂SnO₄ compared to previous reported works?

2. Tin is a precious metal, and Tin-based oxide is considered one of the alternatives to precious metals in line 59.

3. Catalysts with Co₂SnO₄ loaded WO₃ without heterojunctions needed to be applied as a control group for evaluating the difference in catalysis performance and mechanism compared with WO₃@Co₂SnO₄.

4. SEM and XRD could not prove the existence of heterojunctions in this study, but only the present displacement of the XPS spectral peaks to prove whether it was too arbitrary.
5. TOC is an important standard to evaluate the degradation and mineralization of pollutants. TOC for different catalytic systems should be compared.
6. The clarity, aesthetics, and layout of the images need to be adjusted.

7. Part of the manuscript are not formatted uniformly. It is recommended that the author need to make revisions. For example, space before each paragraph; letters case-sensitive; reference format.

8. Avoiding repeating the results in Conclusion section. It would be better if more perspectives of such topic could be provided.

9. We hope the author could cite https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122741 in the revised the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Carefully go through the whole manuscript before submitting the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have effectively addressed all raised queries and substantially improved the revised manuscript. Consequently, the revised manuscript is deemed suitable for publication