A Self-Validating Method via the Unification of Multiple Models for Consistent Parameter Identification in PEM Fuel Cells
, Salvador Botello-Rionda 1,†, Luis Carlos Ordoñez 2,†and Sergio Ivvan Valdez 3,*,†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has serious flaws needs substantial changes to be accepted in this peer-reviewed journal 1-In the overall electrochemical reactions occurring in a PEM fuel cell, the OCP must be given kindly refer the manuscript 1.a.What do u mean by the bi-directional sign in the equation? 2-Write the unit of exchange current density, protonic, electronic and many other parameters in the Table-1 3-Figure 2- is poorly drawn also it must be marked as "Polarisation curve of fuel cell" also the unit of current density must be included. Also Figure-3 specify the GDL as anode or cathode like CL 4-The contribution and validation of the model is not well established 5-With most units pertaining to are in cm2 the surface area per unit mass of Pt is specified in m2/kg wont it affect the model. kindly explain 6-Explain the significance of the figures and graphs in a more comprehensive manner and enhance clarity The manuscript is interesting but the queries needs to be well explainedAuthor Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Here are my comments to the authors of this paper:
1.It's recommended to move Figure 2 to the section where it is first mentioned.
2. In Table 4, what are the last two rows about? Could you labeled them with proper category names just as the rest of the table?
3. In the paragraph between Row 235-239 on Page 11, please explain why the simpler mode (SE) requires even higher numbers of population size and generations in UMDAG than the more complicated models (MH and SP-RCD) to get things converged?
4.In Table 8, please explain why εg in MH case is 10 times of that in the SP-RCD case in Dataset 2?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- In eqs. 1-3, use the arrow in just one direction;
- Table 1 is not cited in the text
- Line 79: Nernst equation
- The manuscript is well constructed, the methodology is clear. From what I can understand, you can extract some fuel cell characteristics starting from some experimental data…so, you can not predict any data? Is it necessary to have experimental data or you can fit other data starting from the model you constructed? Because if you can only fit your starting experimental data, it is a bit limiting…how can you comment on that?
- I suggest to make more clear the operating parameters used to collect the experimental data, despite they are reported in other manuscripts…membrane, backpressure, GDL, carbon support, catalyst, flow rates, Pt loading at the anode and cathode
- I would add a discussion on how the model can predict the same polarization curves but by changing some operating parameters…this would be really interesting to do
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper still has numerous flaws,
1-kindly change "electrocatalytic reaction" to electrochemical reaction"
2-the statement "electrical energy production performance" is confusing change it
3-among the various optimisation strategy fuzzy is a significant component, kindly add it. Refer
Jayakumar A, Ramos M, Al-Jumaily A. A Novel fuzzy schema to control the temperature and humidification of PEM fuel cell system. InInternational Conference on Fuel Cell Science, Engineering and Technology 2015 Jun 28 (Vol. 56611, p. V001T06A005). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
4-Figure-2 polarisation curve is not right. Refer to a standard manuscript and redraw it
5-The flow chart is confusing make it of conventional, and explain the process sequentially
6- The "reference initial experimental PEMFC is found in 43" the reference 43 is very old, why its chosen any reason
7-Table-4,5,6,7 to be marked above the specifications
8-The English written is very poor and needs total overhaul
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript still needs few changes to be accepted for publication;
1-Figure 3 illustrates the schematic of MEA rather CL
2-Table-3 no need to tell "
Algebraic"
3-section 3 nd 4 to be merged as a single section
4-Fig-4 follow the right template for the flow chart, i.e. Input
5-Make conclusion a single paragraph, precise stating opportunities for future scope of the work
6-Make a comprehensive proof reading
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
