Next Article in Journal
Hydrothermally Synthesized Ag@MoS2 Composite for Enhanced Photocatalytic Hydrogen Production
Next Article in Special Issue
Synthesis of Bi-Metallic-Sulphides/MOF-5@graphene Oxide Nanocomposites for the Removal of Hazardous Moxifloxacin
Previous Article in Journal
Degradation of Sulfamethoxazole in Aqueous Solution by Low-Energy X-ray Irradiation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Electrochemically Assisted Persulfate Oxidation of Organic Pollutants in Aqueous Solution: Influences, Mechanisms and Feasibility
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Preparation of Co-CNK-OH and Its Performance in Fenton-like Photocatalytic Degradation of Tetracycline

Catalysts 2023, 13(4), 715; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal13040715
by Dongrui Hou 1, Jing Luo 2, Qinggong Sun 2, Mengyang Zhang 1 and Jianfeng Wang 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Catalysts 2023, 13(4), 715; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal13040715
Submission received: 7 March 2023 / Revised: 2 April 2023 / Accepted: 5 April 2023 / Published: 9 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Catalytic Material for Water Treatment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study regarding to the Cobalt carbon nitride catalyst applied on the Fenton process for the antibiotic removal.

 

In terms of characterization is possible to see a wide range of information, but in the text should be more clearer the presence of cobalt effect. Moreover, the authors should explain why the initial BET of gC3N4 is so low, comparing to other studies on literature.

The authors must follow the leaching of Co after usage. An comment should be adress.

The catalyst concentration and hidrogen peroxide used in the experiment should be referred. Is not clear if authors made an optimization of this conditions.

It seems too much refer at the abstract that this technology can threat a pharmaceutical effluent since just evaluate one antibiotic. Moreover, the initial concentration of TC should be referred at the materials and methods section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The abstract need to be more thorough and detail, line 3- among them? what is them?

2. Need to check on simple grammatical errors. 

3. P2, what is the result of K 2p XPS Spectra? Would be helpful if provided

4. Mistakes in sequence of subtopics and topics.

5. Advise to separate into different topic of characterization and photocatalytic reaction results. 

6. Can improvised the conclusion by explain and conclude more details.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop