Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study deals with the characterization of modified TiO₂ (with rare earth metals). The obtained materials were used for benzohydroxamic acid degradation. The subject topic is interesting and numerous data were provided.  However, there are several flaws and weakness in the form of the manuscript which is written in a confused way. It seems that the authors ambition is to provide a study containing characterization of four new synthesized materials (with computational data) photoactivity and recycling tests all in one.  By reading the sample preparation section no detail were provided, it appears that the authors prepared just one typology of modified TiO2 starting from earth nitrate (see materials in the methods sections). Suddenly the authors starts to evaluate the different effect of doped amount of each rare earth in terms of photoreactivity. Introduction section is poor and confused the same for materials and method section. This section should better describe all the all the sections. For example nothing g is reported for the reusability experiments. As I wrote, the item is not well introduced, too little is given concerning the TiO2 rare earth metal modification. The abstract sections is mainly made in a introduction style. Conclusion sections does not help to understand the obtained results. Characterization data are not exhaustive. Photoactivity data should be much better described.  The main point is that authors fails to give the relevance of the study and the ways in which the new results have advanced the field. For these reasons in my opinion, the manuscript cannot be accepted in the present form and may after a deep reworking could be reconsidered.

Author Response

First of all, thanks to the reviewer’s comments to promote the quality of our manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as follows. 

1) The abstract and conclusion have been revised significantly; 

2) The introduction has been adjusted;

3) Because the prepared method of RE/TiO₂ had been reported in the previous research, the preparation process was introduced briefly. However, the reusability experiments was added as” 2.5. Recycle test of RE/TiO₂” in section 2. 

4) More description about photocatalytic data and characterization results is added in the manuscript. 

All the revised contents are written in red words.

Reviewer 2 Report

A few improvements can be suggested:

1) Please discuss further the results obtained for each technique in the results section. This will enrich your article and its scientific soundness. Alternatively, you can include a discussion section.

2) Enlarge the conclusion. Only one paragraph is too little information.

Finally, you can include the following reference next to ref 5

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/cp/c2cp42606d#!divCitation

Author Response

1) Please discuss further the results obtained for each technique in the results section. This will enrich your article and its scientific soundness. Alternatively, you can include a discussion section. Response: Section 3 is “Results and Discussions”, more discussion has been further conducted in this section, as shown of the red words in the revised manuscript. 2) Enlarge the conclusion. Only one paragraph is too little information. Response: The conclusion has been enlarged, as seen in the conclusion. Finally, you can include the following reference next to ref 5 Response: The mentioned reference has been added as ref 8 in the manuscript. [8] Pinho, L.; Hernández-Garrido, J. C. 2D and 3D characterization of a surfactant-synthesized TiO2–SiO2 mesoporous photocatalyst obtained at ambient temperature. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2013, 15 (8), 2800-2808.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper has high quality and can be accepted  in this present form in the journal.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the present version the manuscript appears improved and could be accepted.