Nanocomposites of Copper Trimesinate and Graphene Oxide as Sorbents for the Solid-Phase Extraction of Organic Dyes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presented aspects regarding the development of a nanocomposite material based on a metal-organic framework structure (copper trimesinate) and graphene oxide, and the use of this nanocomposite for solid-phase extraction of organic dyes. The objectives of the study were the synthesis of a hybrid nanocomposite, and the study of the influence of various parameters (pH, initial dye concentration, temperature, and contact time) on the process of solid-phase extraction.
The paper is original and relevant in the field. The paper is clear presented and well structured.
The conclusions are in agreement with the evidence and arguments presented.
The references are up to date and in accordance with the subject approached.
Please make the following corrections:
Page 9-10, Table 3 – “Langmuir” instead of “Langmure” (model)
Author Response
We have made the appropriate corrections/
Reviewer 2 Report
Article entitled Nanocomposites of Metal-Organic Frameworks and Graphene Oxide as Sorbents for Solid-Phase Extraction of Organic Pollutants written by Igor E. Uflyand, Victoria N. Naumkina, Vladimir A. Zhinzhilo and submitted to Journal of Composites Science.
Article is journal’s scope and could be considered for publication in Journal of Composites Science. As English is not my native language, I am not able to assess language correctness. However, while reading I found some statements missing, confusing or unclear. Below I enclose the list of my comments.
The title is very general - it would indicate a review article. While in fact, it is a research article, specific material is being used. I propose to clarify the title of the publication.
Similarly, in the case of the abstract - there is no detailed information - exactly what substances were removed, doses, conditions. I suggest correcting and clarifying the abstract.
Literature review is very poor. Only 10 items are mentioned.
A deep review of the literature on MOF, adsorption, treatment methods etc. should be performed.
Many articles on MOFs, GO and adsorption were published. Clear statements of novelty should be added. What exactly does this article reveal?
Why only FTIR and BET were used to control obtained results?
Conclusion is very general and imprecise. There is no indication of the most important elements of this article. I would suggest rewriting this chapter.
Based on my comments and general impression, I suggest major revision.
Author Response
Responses to the comments of the reviewer 2
The title is very general - it would indicate a review article. While in fact, it is a research article, specific material is being used. I propose to clarify the title of the publication.
Answer: We have changed the title of the article.
Similarly, in the case of the abstract - there is no detailed information - exactly what substances were removed, doses, conditions. I suggest correcting and clarifying the abstract.
Answer: We have changed the abstract.
Literature review is very poor. Only 10 items are mentioned.
Answer: We have significantly expanded the literature review.
A deep review of the literature on MOF, adsorption, treatment methods etc. should be performed.
Answer: We have significantly expanded the literature review on these issues.
Many articles on MOFs, GO and adsorption were published. Clear statements of novelty should be added. What exactly does this article reveal?
Answer: For the first time, we have obtained a composite based on copper trimesinate and graphene oxide, studied its structure and studied its adsorption capacity with respect to organic dyes.
Why only FTIR and BET were used to control obtained results?
Answer: We conducted additional studies of the composite with SEM and EDX methods in addition to FTIR and BET.
Conclusion is very general and imprecise. There is no indication of the most important elements of this article. I would suggest rewriting this chapter.
Answer: We have changed this chapter.
All fixes are marked in yellow.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This is my second review of this article. The Authors answered all of my questions. Suggested corrections have beed applied. I suggest to accept this article in its present form.
