Interface Optimisation of the Fe2O3/C3N4 Heterojunction with Metal Nanoparticles and Their Negative and Positive Photoelectric Responses in a Broadband Light Spectrum Range
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The abstract states that the work investigated the Fe2O3/C3N4 heterojunction with Cu, Au, Pt, Pd nanoparticles for a photoconductive reaction. The study design was chosen quite well. Methods and materials are described in detail. The chemical composition is partially described in the work and there are links to previous work. Although it would be more convenient for the reader to see the composition here.
1 Unfortunately, results with Au, Pt, and Pd particles are not presented. (A comparative experimental study was carried out using Au, Pt, Pd instead of Cu and similar results were obtained. Due to space limitations, they are not presented here.) Still, I would like to see at least some comparative analysis stated in the abstract .
2 In Figure 1 there are inscriptions in very small font between the pictures. If you need them, make them larger. If they are not needed, they should be removed.
3 The literature is not formatted uniformly. For example: in 49 (2020:1–12.), 71 (12(10):1401.), 72 (2023.16:150.) and others, spaces are missing. Check the format of the literature.
4 In almost all figures, the size of the labels is very small (names of axes, scales and legends). Make it bigger.
5 There is no information about the percentage of copper particles in the suspension, their sizes...
After correcting the comments, I recommend it for publication.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your work and comments on our paper. We have revised it according to the comments. The changes have been highlighted in the revision.
Sincerely,
Xingfa Ma
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully read this article and found it publishable after several corrections :
1) It is difficult to read the abstract without information about the allotropic varieties of Fe2O3 and of N3C4.
2) In the introduction, line 119, is it necessary to introduce Au, Pd, Pt and Ag to speak about a Copper containing catalyst?
3) Preparation of graphitic carbon nitride and Fe2O3/C3N4 are clear. However the conductivity measurements are perform on the powder suspended on another organic conducting polymer. PET. Is not it possible to change of equipment and record the photoelectric signal of your powder directly? Using auto-supported wafers for instance??
4) Figures 2B and 2C cannot be accepted. A wrong signal is used for datacollection and appears as negative peaks. The differences between the signal of the sa mple without copper and with copper will be more precisely indicated by a Figure on which the two corresponding spectra are superposed.
5) Line 243, as shown in Figure 2-A (not 4-A)
6) Line 248, why don’t you use the Scherrer equation to estimate the size of Fe2O3 and N3C4 particles?
7) Scheme 2 relative to N3C4, to be replaced by something equivalent for Fe2O3 N3C4 mixed materials or remove it to keep the accent on Scheme 3
8) Add a value corresponding to photocurrent response with your N3C4 initial component
9) In Figure 7, a blue curve is missing on Figure A on the second maximum for an excitation at 405 nm. Can it give to you information about the band-gap?
10) Avoid Au, Pd, Pt and stays on Copper in line 369
11) XPS to allow a more complet discussion, I think that the XPS spectra of N3O4 and of Fe2O3 can be given at least as supplementary information for the reader?
12) In the conclusion, it is announced that the copper nanoparticles are inserted inside the C4N4/Fe2O3 heterojunctions. Without MEB images and SEM analysis, it is difficult to believe you. You have the size of the metallic Copper nanoparticles and their aggregates in TEM. Is that size compatible with the dimensions expected between N3C4 and Fe2O3 heterojunctions?
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your work and comments on our paper. We have revised it according to the comments. The changes have been highlighted in the revision.
Sincerely,
Xingfa Ma
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Sir, Thank you for your work and comments on our paper. We have revised it according to the comments. The changes have been highlighted in the revision. Some of the questions were explained. Maybe the disciplinary background is different and it is difficult for us to understand some issues. We focus on the conjugated system of the material and the abundance of defects and improved properties. Sincerely, Xingfa MaAuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf
