Modification of Ti/Sb-SnO2/PbO2 Electrode by Active Granules and Its Application in Wastewater Containing Copper Ions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments on the manuscript “Modification of Ti/Sb-SnO2/PbO2 electrode by active granules and its application in wastewater containing copper ions” by Xuanqi Kang, Jia Wu,, Zhen Wei, Bo Jia, Qing Feng, Shangyuan Xu and Yunhai Wang, submitted to MDPI Catalysts
The authors describe using solid admixture of WC and/or Co3O4 to a composite Ti-based electrode in view of its application for Cu removal from wastewaters. The authors apply several appropriate techniques to characterize their materials before using them in electrochemical tests in which one of the compositions turned out to be superior to the other electrodes tested. I find the article publishable, however, after giving thought by the authors to certain points.
1) Misleading notation. The authors use designation like Ti/PbO2, apparently for short, whereas in fact they mean Ti/Sb-SnO2/PbO2. I find it misleading. Perhaps the authors may consider using acronyms for each material they use, clearly explaining what each of them stands for
2) SEM analysis. Can we actually see any WC or Co3O4 particles or not? How the authors rationalize the bright features visible in the inset in Fig. 2b. It does not help when the authors use a sentence like this: “The microscopic morphology of all electrodes displays the tetrahedron-shaped, with a slightly difference with each other.” (line 141) What actually is tetrahedron-shaped in this sentence?
3) XRD results. The authors state: “No peaks corresponding to Sb or SnO2 are detected, indicating the 163 Sb-SnO2 interlayer is fully covered by the thick layer of β-PbO2 coating.” (line 163) But, at the same time, Sn shows up in XPS for the same material (line 180). Now, the lack of reflections from a pattern of Sb or SnO2 may be a results of their low crystallinity, rather than of their being covered by a layer of PbO2. Besides, the figure representing the XRD is numbered 3, but in the text it is referred to as Figure 2 (line 156).
4) Minor mistakes. There are actually quite a number of them, so the paper should be carefully proofread before publication. For instance:
line 16 – “increase more active sites”, supposedly authors mean “increase an amount of active sites”;
line 20 – “electrode possesses the superior oxygen evolution reaction” – an electrode cannot “possess” a reaction.
These are only a few examples of errors that should be corrected before publishing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The present manuscript "Modification of Ti/Sb-SnO2/PbO2 electrode by active granules 2 and its application in wastewater containing copper ions" claim the deposition of copper from copper ions in wastewater. Althought the manuscript is interesting, however, I would like to give some minor comments to improve the manuscript before publication.
1. Explain WC in the abstract before you abbreviate it.
2. Abstract is too long. Please summarize it.
3. Line 38, "very environment-friendly" . Remove very.
4. Line 41, give space in etc[7-10].
5. Line 57 " How to reduce the 57 oxygen evolution overpotential of the electrode becomes an important task for many re- 58 searchers". Don't start the sentence with How.
6. In the Materials section "All chemicals are of analytical grade". Can the authors give the names of the chemicals?
7. The deposited copper is Cu (1) or Cu (0). Did authors performed any test for those or can author give any characterization which shows the prescence of Cu (I) or Cu (0)?
8. There are many typo errors in the manuscript.
9. Remove grammatical errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript submitted by Kang et al reported the modification of Ti/Sb-SnO2/PbO2 electrode by active granules for treating wastewater containing copper ions. The conception is interesting, and the data showed in this work is very sufficient and robust. Moreover, the logic is organized well. And both the synthesis and catalytic effect are good. Thus, I recommend its publication in the esteemed journal Catalysts after addressing the following minor issues:
1. The standard XRD patterns with PDF# for various phases should be provided in Figure 3.
2. TEM image as well as the elemental mapping is suggested to present to demonstrate the microstructure and the distribution of phase component.
3. The analysis for Co 2p XPS spectra (Figure 4e) should be double checked.
4. The formats for all references should be unified, especially whether the first letter of each word is capitalized in the title.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have fulfilled all the comments however comment 7 is not fully satisfied as authors write we think and on the basis of thinking science doesn’t work. I hope the authors will improve their knowledge in future publications. Zerovalent copper is also not that much stable it should also be taken care before its characterization. This manuscript could be accepted in the present form.
