Advanced Nanostructured MXene-Based Materials for High Energy Density Lithium–Sulfur Batteries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be published
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments on this paper. It is thanks to your constructive suggestions that our manuscript meets the standard for the publication in IJMS. Thank you very much!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I fully support this review paper since it summarizes effectively the state of the art on novel MXene material for lithium sulfur battery application. However the following point should be taken into consideration:
1) Li-ion batteries were invented during the 20th century and not 19th century as reported in the paper.
2) Since heteroatom doped graphene is a possible alternative to MXene, the authors can cite some more relevant papers. E.g. Doi.org/10.3390/batteries6030046, doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2019.04.062, doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2016.09.021.
Author Response
- Line 22, "19th century" has been changed to "20th century".
- We have read in detail the three articles you recommended. All three articles are devoted to the investigation of the chemical interactions between heteroatom-doped graphene and polysulfides. We happen to provide a brief summary of the application of graphene-based materials in lithium-sulfur batteries in the introduction. Therefore, we cite and describe these three articles in line 76.
Description: “For example, Sgroi et al., Rao et al. and Vélez et al. investigated the interaction of heteroatom-doped graphene with LiPSs using the first principle and showed that the introduction of heteroatoms enhanced the adsorption energy between the electrode material and LiPSs.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I support the publication of the paper, an extensive review of the state of the art on passive direct alchool fuel cells, on Energies. However I suggest the following changes:
1) Please include a list of the acronyms
2) Please check the missing references
3) It would be useful and clearer for the reader to include some figures coming from the original research papers. This is expecially needed when describing specific cell geometries or technical solutions that are better understood with a graphical support.
4) Since DAFCs are competitors of Li-ion cells for portable applications, their advantages should be properly justified and documented. A Ragone plot comparing different technologies (DAFCs, batteries, supercapacitors) in the introduction could be useful.
5) Cost is a very important aspect on any energy storage/production devices. I suggest to include some contents on cost analysis of DAFCs. A relevant reference could be: doi:10.3390/en9121008.
Author Response
Our review reviewed the current status of MXene material synthesis and its recent advances in lithium-sulfur batteries, and did not mention direct alcohol fuel cells. Therefore, perhaps the wrong review comment was sent.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper by Tian et al. is a detailed review of the use of MXene materials in lithium-sulfur batteries. It is well written and sound. I would like to suggest some minor changes:
- define the acronyms before the first use, for example LSB on line 30, LiPS on line 57 and SSA on line 294;
- on line 32 it seems that lithium sulfur batteries are already used in vehicles, please, mitigate this sentence
- the quality of all figures is very low. It must be improved, obtaining the original figures from the original papers.
Author Response
- We checked the acronyms defined for the first time in the full text and made changes. Line 30, "LSBs" has been changed to “lithium sulfur batteries (LSBs)”. “LiPSs” on line 57 have been described in line 45. “SSA” on line 294 have been described in line 258.
- Line 32, “New energy vehicles with LSBs can travel approximately 500 kilometers after a full charge which is far more than the market demand.” has been changed to “New energy vehicles equipped with LSBs have a longer range on a full charge than the currently commercialized LIBs.”
- We have replaced the clearer images in the review and changed the smaller fonts in Figure 3cd and Figure 4e.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
