All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Authors have successfully responded to all reviewers comments. Hence the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
1. Equation number is required in the equation provided in Material synthesis section.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
The manuscript discusses the sulfur and carbon mono-doped sodium tantalate nanocubes in rich alkaline atmosphere by low temperature hydrothermal process. Sodium tantalate, carbon doped sodium tantalite and sulfur doped sodium tantalate were found to have perovskite cubic crystal structure (Pm-3m space group) with an average size of 38 nm, 45 nm and 40 nm, and band gap values of 3.94 eV, 3.8 eV and 3.52 eV respectively. The manuscript is written well and composed of the justified studies, however, it would be good addition if authors may justify the sulphur and carbon doping using XPS studies and changes in Raman studies (if possible) over sodium tantalates. Lack of some relevant references could be seen whose addition may increase the impact of the studies such as Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 57 (1), 18-41, 2018; ACS Omega, 4, 19408-19419, 2019; Scientific Reports, 9, 4488 (1-17), 2019; Desalination and Water Treatment, 162, 303-312, 2019. The manuscript may be considered after addressing the above issues.
NO
Synthesis is not controlled.
Poor validity of the findings are present
This work presents the hydrothermal synthesis of photocatalytic C and S doped NaTaO3 for MB degradation. SEM, EDS, XRD, UV-Visible and TGA techniques are utilized as characterization. However, the characterization techniques are insufficient to confirm the doping of C and S in NaTaO3. Lack of evidences has been observed with poor validity of interpreted results. The degradation results ambiguous and lacks with accuracy. I hereby reject the paper in its present form. However, suitable rebuttle of comments, one can acces for its publication.
1. License number of VESTA-software is required
2. EDS analysis required the atomic percent ratios of the synthesized photocatalysts.
3. XPS, Raman analyses or alternative techniques are required to support the doping of C and S successfully as the XRD is the only technique used for the purpose and it seems insufficient.
4. Line 140 stoke solution should be stock solution
5. What is the intensity used for the source light and how is it calibrated?
6. In XRD, C doping should shrink the lattice structure and S should Expand the lattice structure of NaTaO3 but the peaks shiftings are not showing the stated trend and not confirming the doping in lattice structure but may be at the interstices.
7. Thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) and DTA in Figure 15 shows the degradation of impurities from the glucose residue and sodium thiosulphate residue and may refer as impurity not doping!
8. In figure 17, how can the MB degrade without catalyst? In other words, why balnk run showing degradation?
9. In any case if it shows degradation, will the blank run effects or data was subtracted from the photocatalysts data?
10. PL and IPCE studies should also be present.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.