An Insight into Carbon Nanomaterial-Based Photocatalytic Water Splitting for Green Hydrogen Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review article entitled " An Insight into Carbon Nanomaterial-Based Photocatalytic Water Splitting For Green Hydrogen Production " has a complete work.  The authors in this review comprehensively explain   how carbon-based composite materials function as photocatalytic semiconductors for hydrogen production, water splitting mechanism, and chemistry of redox reactions. The review is well organized and every thing is described . My opinion , the review is acceptable..

Author Response

 

Editor/Reviewer-1

Catalysts

Subject: An Insight into Carbon Nanomaterial-Based Photocatalytic Water Splitting for Green Hydrogen Production (Manuscript ID: catalysts-2095056)

Dear Sir/Miss,

Thank you very much for peer reviewing our manuscript and we appreciate your complimentary recommendations as your valuable comments encouraged us to future plan such work in this field.

We hope that your valuable comments will be helpful for acceptance in the stemmed journal Catalysts.

Kind Regards

Corresponding Author

Reviewer 2 Report

This review paper describes the role of carbon nanomaterials-based photocatalytic water splitting to produce hydrogen.

 

1.        This paper is well written.

2.        The paper sounds scientific approach.

3.        The work is well-described and organized.

 

However, a minor revision is required for the following concerns.

1.        The authors should add a table describing the physical and chemical properties of the carbon nanomaterials.

2.        The older paper cited in the references should be replaced with the latest papers especially those published within the past five years such as

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.046

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Editor/Reviewer-2

Catalysts

Subject: An Insight into Carbon Nanomaterial-Based Photocatalytic Water Splitting for Green Hydrogen Production (Manuscript ID: catalysts-2095056)

 

Dear Sir/Miss,

Thank you very much for peer reviewing our manuscript and we appreciate your complimentary recommendations as your comments have helped us significantly to improve the manuscript. We have carefully scrutinized the suggestions mentioned by our worthy reviewers and in accordance of reviewer’s comments, we have revised the manuscript. 

In general, all the recommendations and suggestions have been addressed and incorporated in the manuscript which include following.

Sr No.	Reviewer’s-2 Suggestions	Response
1	The authors should add a table describing the physical and chemical properties of the carbon nanomaterials.	Table describing the physical and chemical properties of the carbon nanomaterials has been added (Table 1 in revised manuscript)
2	The older paper cited in the references should be replaced with the latest papers especially those published within the past five years such ashttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.046	Appropriate changes have been made according to suggestion. Almost 45% references comprise of papers within the past five years and 90% references include the papers from last 10 years.

 

 

We hope that revised manuscript would be satisfying for all requirements and will be suitable for consideration for publication.

Kind Regards

Corresponding Author

Reviewer 3 Report

1. From line 91, the authors claimed that, "CNMs does not have significant photocatalytic activity", then, what is the real catalyst? The logic is kind of messy here.

2. Lie 105, what is "PWS" short for?

3. The authors should check the manuscript more carefully, be care of the units and some other typos, such as line 130, the unit of G, line 132, "figure2" should be corrected to "Figure 2", and in the figure captions, there should be a space between Figure and Number, "Figure2" should be "Figure 2".

4. There is only one subdivision (2.1) under Section 2, therefore, subdivision is not needed.

5. The same problem for section 3.

6. Please re-organize the manuscript, "3.0" in line 172 and “4.0” in line 330 are not appropriate.

7. Please re-plot Table 3, table 4, table 5 and table 6 into three-line tables.

8. Line 706, since there is no CQDS in table 1, please double check whether it is missing.

9. I would like to suggest going through the manuscript more carefully for clarity, syntax and correctness. The English should be improved for the sake of clarity.

Author Response

Editor/Reviewer-3

Catalysts

 

Subject: An Insight into Carbon Nanomaterial-Based Photocatalytic Water Splitting for Green Hydrogen Production (Manuscript ID: catalysts-2095056)

 

Dear Sir/Miss,

Thank you very much for peer reviewing our manuscript and we appreciate your complimentary recommendations as your comments have helped us significantly to improve the manuscript. We have carefully scrutinized the suggestions mentioned by our worthy reviewers and in accordance of reviewer’s comments, we have revised the manuscript. 

In general, all the recommendations and suggestions have been addressed and incorporated in the manuscript which include following.

Sr No.	Reviewer’s-3 Suggestions		Response
1	From line 91, the authors claimed that, "CNMs does not have significant photocatalytic activity", then, what is the real catalyst? The logic is kind of messy here.		The sentence has been rephrased as “Though CNMs own very little intrinsicphotocatalytic activity, but they can improve the efficiency of active site of the photocatalyst as a carrier.” Possession of scarcely photocatalytic activity by CNMs has been also reported recently. Link is provided for your reference. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(21)63994-3
2	Lie 105, what is "PWS" short for?		"PWS" is short for “Photocatalytic Water Splitting”. This abbreviation has been introduced in the abstract and at the start of manuscript.
3	The authors should check the manuscript more carefully, be care of the units and some other typos, such as line 130, the unit of G, line 132, "figure2" should be corrected to "Figure 2", and in the figure captions, there should be a space between Figure and Number, "Figure2" should be "Figure 2".		The manuscript has been reviewed for units and some other typo-mistakes. The highlighted point has been corrected.
4	There is only one subdivision (2.1) under Section 2, therefore, subdivision is not needed.		The highlighted mistake has been reviewed and corrected.
5		The same problem for section 3.	The correction has been made.
6		Please re-organize the manuscript, "3.0" in line 172 and “4.0” in line 330 are not appropriate.	The suggested correction has been made.
7		Please re-plot Table 3, table 4, table 5 and table 6 into three-line tables.	All the tables in the whole manuscript have been re-drawn into three-line tables.
8		Line 706, since there is no CQDS in table 1, please double check whether it is missing.	Missing CQDs have been inserted in Table.
9		I would like to suggest going through the manuscript more carefully for clarity, syntax and correctness. The English should be improved for the sake of clarity.	The manuscript has been reviewed thoroughly and corrections have been made for clarity and syntax errors.

 

 

We hope that revised manuscript would be satisfying for all requirements and will be suitable for consideration for publication.

Kind Regards

Corresponding Author

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept