Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

carbon-2468784

Review of the article titled: 

« Graphene oxide: a comparison of reduction methods»

 

by Natalia Garrote de Barros, Abel Cardoso Gonzaga Neto, Kleber Bitencourt Vaccioli, Hugo Rafael Vallejo Angulo, Leonardo Gondim de Andrade e Silva, Samuel Marcio Toffoli, Ticiane Sanches Valera

 

In Batteries (ISSN 2313-0105).

 

Round 1

 

The abstract perfectly underlines the relevance of the presented research. Searching for novel procedures for reducing graphene oxide is most significant to graphene preparation.

 

The article was presented in a well-structured manner, with a good level of organization. Unfortunately, several statements within have weak evidence. Therefore, the referee suggested improving the manuscript with a major revision. The following is a list of specific concerns.

 

1.     No valid references have been cited since 2022 (only one article). Also, there is no reference cited in 2023.

Please add electrochemical procedures for graphene preparation:

https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28073238

Also, add several articles concerning the chemical reduction of the graphene oxide

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2019.06.081;

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.9b03060.

 

2.     It is well-known commercial graphene materials have possessed diffpossesshttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41699-022-00330-80). Which methods did you use to purify your products? Which methods have been used to control the purification process and assay your products?

 

3.     Provide any data on the reproducibility of the protocol.

 

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of paper which title is “Graphene oxide: a comparison of reduction methods” evaluated the synthesized graphene-based material and compared them through different characterization methods. The paper is interesting, however; it needs to consider the following before publishing in Chemical Engineering Journal.

 

 

1-     In the abstract part, authors need to remove some sentences which is related to the introduction part. Instead of that, authors need to highlight some quantitative results from the experimental part.

2-     In the introduction part, I recommend the authors to highlight the 2D materials due to the focus of special issue. Lis the advanced 2D materials such as TMDs, MoS2, BN, Phosphorene, etc. Then, highlight the importance of graphene and its properties for different applications. Authors can use the following references:

 

https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201800865

https://doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202000148

 

3-     One of the main method for the exfoliation and preparation of graphene oxide or rGO is through electrochemical methods. Authors need to highlight the advantage of electrochemical (cathodic, anodic, or bipolar exfoliation) of graphene. Please check the following paper for the bipolar exfoliation of graphene to GO and rGO.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.9b00479

 

4-     One more important comment about the introduction part is the review of previous studies. It looks like a review paper where the authors highlight each method in one paragraph. Authors need to combine the previous methods, highlight their advantages and disadvantages, and then point out the importance of current study.

5-     For the Raman analysis of GO, please provide a explanation for the bans at high Raman shift (D* to 2D). Moreover, explain that why the rGO of electron beam provide a strong 2D bands compared to the thermally reduced graphene?

6-     Please provide the FTIR analysis of thermally reduced graphene oxide to check the functional groups of samples.

7-     For the EDS results in table 3, how many spots are measured? As EDS is not that sensitive, is the ration results reliable?

8-     Please provide the XPS or TEM analysis of samples to get better understanding of oxygen state for each sample.

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further concerns. I agree with its acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper is ready to publish in a present form.