Covalent Modification of Iron Phthalocyanine into Skeleton of Graphitic Carbon Nitride and Its Visible-Light-Driven Photocatalytic Reduction of Nitroaromatic Compounds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors show an interesting work for the treatment of pollutants through developing a novel hybrid photocatalyst of covalently modifying iron phthalocyanine (FePc). Although the work is significant interest in the improvement of photocatalytic activity and deserves publication, however, I strongly recommend a thorough revision of the use of English.  Also, there are some issues need to improve as the xps section; please fit the groups in the text with that in the figures especially for the C1s. The poor interpretation of the FTIR. Figure 2 should divide into two figures by separate the xrd from the FTIR. I therefore recommend the major revision before acceptance

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dong and coworkers reported FePc doped graphitic carbon nitride photocatalytic reduction of nitroaromatic compounds. The work is well done and the paper is also well written. However, there are still some flaws in the experiments and writing. Therefore, I suggest a major revision for the paper.

1. I noticed some typos in the paper. Please read and double-check. Besides, instead of calling graphitic carbon nitride CN, I would suggest using gCN, which is commonly used in the literature. 

2. Figure 2a, the authors claimed that “ intensity gradually decreases as increasing the FePc content”. This claim is not scientific. XRD is a bulk technology, so the amount you tested, the position you put would vary, which will highly influence the intensity. Unless the authors use in-situ XRD, the intensity can be directly compared, which is not the case. A better way to see the change in crystallinity from XRD is to see the change in FWHM.

3. Figure 2a, a XRD pdf card of CN from data base is better provided.

4. Figure 2b, the authors claimed that the doping of FePc results in enlargement of the interlayer distance. Any literature support this claim? For me, it is hard to understand why the doping only increases the distance in Z direction but not x or y direction, as the FePC seems like a very planner structure from Scheme 1.

5. The introduction of photocatalysis about graphitic carbon nitride should be revised. CN is a good carbon-based photocatalyst, but there are many other carbon-based photocatalysts such as graphene quantum dots (https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201807385) and covalent organic frameworks (Chem. Sci., 2021, 12, 16092-16099) that should be introduced, and the above paper could be cited. Then the authors could talk about the advantages of CN over the other carbon-based photocatalysts, such as low cost.

6. Figure 3a, the bandgap for both CN and FeCN could be provided based on the absorption data. Is Figure 8c obtained from Figure 3a? Please be clear in the paper.

7. Figure 3b, how did the authors measure PL? Is a solution-based PL? If so, what is the concentration? What is the excitation wavelength? Please add this detailed information into the paper.

8. Figure 5a, the color of -30 min and 140 min is too similar and please change it.

9. The claim “two isosbestic points at 276 and 310 nm indicate that p-AP is the only product and no byproducts were formed in the photocatalytic reduction reaction” is not right. The presence of two peaks can only prove the p-AP is the product but not the only product. The byproduct could have no absorption or less than 200 nm. Instead, HPLC data from the authors could prove the “only product” claim.

10. The detailed method to get Figure 8 such as equations should be provided in the method part. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was improved and can be accepted in the present form

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered my questions very well

the current version is good to go