Synthesis and Characterization of Nanomaterials for Application in Cost-Effective Electrochemical Devices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review aims to provide readers with a broad perspective of advances made in the field of synthesis and characterization of nanomaterials for application in cost-effective electrochemical devices. The review seems to be interesting to the researchers. This work is a well-structured and high-end review work. I was pleased to review your manuscript. However, few minor issues need to be addressed before its final acceptance.

The abstract first paragraph needs to be revised, the abstract should clearly discuss the problem statement and various techniques discussed in the manuscript. 

There are many reviews already available in the literature. What is the novelty in this review over the reported one?

Include the graphical Abstract for the manuscript.

The organization of the manuscript should be added to the introduction section.

There are some subscript errors are there in the manuscript text. For. E.g. CuCo2S4@CoMoO4; CuCo2S4, CoMoO4, and CuCo2S4@CoMoO4; MoS2 flakes

The conclusion section is also based on the critical discussion made in the manuscript. So the conclusion section needs to be elaborated.

The homogeneity of the reference section needs to be maintained. In some references, subscript errors are there. So please check and revise accordingly to the journal's instructions.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The review aims to provide readers with a broad perspective of advances made in the field of synthesis and characterization of nanomaterials for application in cost-effective electrochemical devices. The review seems to be interesting to the researchers. This work is a well-structured and high-end review work. I was pleased to review your manuscript. However, a few minor issues need to be addressed before its final acceptance.

 

1. The abstract first paragraph needs to be revised, the abstract should discuss the problem statement and various techniques discussed in the manuscript.

 

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We apologize for any confusion caused by the abstract's initial paragraph. We have revised the abstract to address the problem statement and provide an overview of the various techniques discussed in the manuscript. Please find the revised abstract

2. There are many reviews already available in the literature. What is the novelty in this review over the reported one?

 

Response: Thank you for raising this question. We appreciate the opportunity to highlight the contributions of our manuscript to the topics covered. Here, we outline the distinctive aspects of our review compared to previously reported ones:

We aim to offer a detailed understanding of the relationship between synthesis techniques and the resulting nanomaterial properties, facilitating the selection of appropriate methods for specific applications.

This review delves into the realm of nanotechnology-based electrochemical sensors, providing an in-depth exploration of their principles, fabrication methods, and applications. By addressing the advancements and challenges in this field, we contribute to the existing literature by offering a comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art nanoscale sensors for electrochemical applications.

While previous reviews have discussed the role of nanomaterials in energy storage devices, our review specifically focuses on nanostructured materials and their influence on the electrochemical performance of such devices. We analyze the unique properties and design considerations of nanostructured materials, providing insights into their role in improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of energy storage technologies.

Water purification using nanotechnology through electrochemical processes is an emerging area of research. Our review explores this specific application, discussing the electrochemical methods employed and their potential for efficient water purification. By emphasizing the role of nanotechnology in this context, we contribute to the understanding of sustainable and cost-effective water treatment solutions.

The integration of green nanoscale techniques and electrochemical methods for the creation of high-precision, economical products is a unique aspect of our review. We examine the synergistic potential of these approaches and their implications for the development of environmentally friendly, cost-effective products with improved performance.

Our review investigates the integration of nanostructures with electrochemical systems in economically significant applications beyond energy storage. We explore how the combination of nanostructures and electrochemical technologies can drive advancements in various industries, leading to improved productivity and cost-effectiveness.

Lastly, our review addresses the prospects and challenges in the field of nanomaterials for electrochemical devices. We discuss the emerging trends, potential research directions, and the hurdles that need to be overcome for the widespread adoption of nanotechnology in the industrial and commercial sectors. So, our manuscript offers a comprehensive analysis and synthesis of the existing literature, while providing unique contributions in each of the areas mentioned above.

3. Include the graphical Abstract for the manuscript.

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion to include a graphical abstract for our manuscript. We agree that a graphical abstract can provide a concise and visually appealing summary of our work. Taking your suggestion into consideration, we have created a graphical abstract that highlights the key aspects of our research.

3. The organization of the manuscript should be added to the introduction section.

Response: Thank you for your feedback and valuable suggestions. We have organized the introduction to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic.

 

4. There are some subscript errors are there in the manuscript text. For. E.g. CuCo2S4@CoMoO4; CuCo2S4, CoMoO4, and CuCo2S4@CoMoO4; MoS2 flakes

Response: Thank you for your opinion. Regarding the notation used to represent the composite structure or interaction between materials, we have used the "/" symbol.  This notation indicates the composite formation or interaction between two materials.

 

5. The conclusion section is also based on the critical discussion made in the manuscript. So the conclusion section needs to be elaborated.

Response: Thank you for your feedback and suggestions regarding the conclusion section of the manuscript. We appreciate your insights and have considered them. Based on your recommendation, we have revised the conclusion to provide a comprehensive overview of the findings.

 

6. The homogeneity of the reference section needs to be maintained. In some references, subscript errors are there. So please check and revise accordingly to the journal's instructions.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have curated this section.

Reviewer 2 Report

The current version of the manuscript is logically confused and lacks coherence, without the author's thinking and analysis. The Abstract is lengthy and the Conclusion is inconsistent with the topic selection of the review. The author needs to make major revisions based on the manuscript, and here are a few issues:

 

1. The format of the references needs to be uniform, and some documents lack page numbers or numbers.

2. The literature review is not organized, and the full text lacks a basic logical framework.

3. The formats of some tables are incorrect, and the formats of Tables are inconsistent.

4. The copyright statement of the Figures does not meet the requirements of the publishing house, please implement the copyright statement format. Some of the Figures lack a copyright notice.

5. Supplement the scientific issues that the review seeks to summarize and emphasize the importance of the topic chosen or whether it fills current research gaps.

6. The layers and connections between paragraphs in the manuscript are not up to par. The lack of structure in a long review can cause a great deal of trouble for the reader.

7. Some chemical formulas consider upper and lower scripts, while most do not. It is not clear whether the author is careless or some other reason.

8. Researchers in related fields cannot find the content and data they need well in manuscripts.

9. Select Abbreviations in alphabetical order.

10. Lack of horizontal comparison between the properties of various materials and the differences in performance.

11. Nanomaterials are widely applied in various electrochemical devices. Some typical references are suggested to be cited, e.g. Chemical Engineering Journal 2023, 458, 141381; Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts 2022, 7 (1), 63-72; Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2023, 662, 131018.

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

The current version of the manuscript is logically confused and lacks coherence, without the author's thinking and analysis. The Abstract is lengthy and the Conclusion is inconsistent with the topic selection of the review. The author needs to make major revisions based on the manuscript, and here are a few issues:

1. The format of the references needs to be uniform, and some documents lack page numbers or numbers.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have curated this section.

2. The literature review is not organized, and the full text lacks a basic logical framework.

Response: Response: Thank you for your feedback and valuable suggestions. We have organized the introduction to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic.

2. The formats of some tables are incorrect, and the formats of Tables are inconsistent.

Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the formats of the tables in the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail and have addressed the issues you raised. Based on your comment, we have carefully reviewed and rectified the formatting errors in the tables.

3. The copyright statement of the Figures does not meet the requirements of the publishing house, please implement the copyright statement format. Some of the Figures lack a copyright notice.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the issue regarding the copyright statement of the figures in the manuscript. We will ensure that all figures include the appropriate copyright notice.

4. Supplement the scientific issues that the review seeks to summarize and emphasize the importance of the topic chosen or whether it fills current research gaps.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your thorough review of our work. Regarding the topic of our research, we believe that it indeed fills current research gaps in the field. Our study focuses on the exploration and characterization of nanomaterials for electrochemical applications, which is an area of significant interest and importance in the scientific community. Nanomaterials offer unique properties and advantages due to their nanoscale dimensions, such as large surface areas, unique structures, and enhanced reactivity. These characteristics make them promising candidates for various applications, including energy storage, catalysis, and sensing. However, there are still many challenges and gaps in understanding their fundamental properties and optimizing their performance for practical applications. Our research aims to address these gaps by investigating the characteristics and construction of nanomaterials at the atomic and molecular levels. Through advanced computational simulations and experimental characterization techniques, we aim to gain insights into the structure-property relationships of nanomaterials and their electrochemical behavior. By elucidating these fundamental aspects, we contribute to the scientific understanding of nanomaterials and their potential applications. Our work not only provides insights into the design and optimization of nanomaterials for electrochemical systems but also sheds light on their broader implications in addressing current energy challenges and advancing technology. Therefore, we firmly believe that our research fills current research gaps by providing new knowledge and understanding in the field of nanomaterials for electrochemical applications. We hope that our findings will contribute to further advancements in this area and inspire future research endeavors.

5. The layers and connections between paragraphs in the manuscript are not up to par. The lack of structure in a long review can cause a great deal of trouble for the reader.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the structure and organization of our manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail and your insights regarding the layers and connections between paragraphs. In response to your comments, we have reevaluated the structure of our manuscript and ensured that each paragraph is appropriately connected to the preceding and following paragraphs. We will pay close attention to the logical progression of ideas, the inclusion of appropriate transitions, and the overall coherence of the text.

6. Some chemical formulas consider upper and lower scripts, while most do not. It is not clear whether the author is careless or for some other reason.

Response: We apologize for any confusion or inconsistency caused by the varying use of upper and lower scripts in the chemical formulas in the manuscript. We acknowledge the importance of adhering to established conventions and ensuring clarity in scientific notation. To address this issue, we have reviewed and standardized the representation of chemical formulas in our manuscript.

 

7. Researchers in related fields cannot find the content and data they need well in manuscripts. Select Abbreviations in alphabetical order.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the organization of abbreviations in our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion to present the abbreviations in alphabetical order to facilitate ease of reference for researchers in related fields. As per your suggestion, we have reorganized the abbreviations in alphabetical order throughout the manuscript.

 

10. Lack of horizontal comparison between the properties of various materials and the differences in performance.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully reviewed your feedback and have incorporated it into the manuscript. We have created two tables to address the points you raised.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Morphological Features and Properties of Nanomaterials Synthesized via Different Methods. We have included a table that provides a horizontal comparison of the morphological features and properties of nanomaterials synthesized through various methods, such as sol-gel, hydrothermal, and chemical vapor deposition. This table allows for a comprehensive understanding of the variations in characteristics based on the synthesis method employed. Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Performance of Nanomaterials in Various Electrochemical Devices. We have also created a table that compares the performance of different nanomaterials when applied in various electrochemical devices, including batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, and sensors. This table highlights the distinct properties and performance characteristics of nanomaterials in different applications, aiding in the identification of suitable materials for specific device requirements. We believe that these tables provide valuable information to readers, enabling them to make informed decisions when selecting nanomaterials for electrochemical applications. We greatly appreciate your suggestion, and we are confident that these additions enhance the clarity and comprehensiveness of our manuscript.

 

11. Nanomaterials are widely applied in various electrochemical devices. Some typical references are suggested to be cited, e.g. Chemical Engineering Journal 2023, 458, 141381; Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts 2022, 7 (1), 63-72; Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2023, 662, 131018.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion to include references to support the application of nanomaterials in electrochemical devices. We appreciate your input, as it adds further credibility to our work and provides readers with additional resources for further exploration. In line with your recommendation, we have included these references in our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors! Thank you for submitting your manuscript to "Sustainability". Your review article highlights the actual problems of using low-cost nanomaterials in electrochemical technology, and I think it corresponds to the scope and high rating of "Sustainability".

Meanwhile, the text of the manuscript needs to be improved before publication due to the following comments:

1. The abstract in the current version is so long. Please rewrite it and limit it to a short summary of the article with key findings.

2. The current keywords are quite strange. Please choose keywords that will make the article more visible in sciencemetric databases due to the Article Title.

3. Please add the relevant references to Tables 1, 3 for the convenience of the reader.

4. The introduction is so long that the reader feels uncomfortable. Please shorten it and emphasise the research gap.

5. Please arrange and order the figures in a single style.

Polishing with a native English speaker is desirable.

Author Response

Your review article highlights the actual problems of using low-cost nanomaterials in electrochemical technology, and I think it corresponds to the scope and high rating of "Sustainability".

 

Meanwhile, the text of the manuscript needs to be improved before publication due to the following comments:

 

1. The abstract in the current version is so long. Please rewrite it and limit it to a summary of the article with key findings.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We apologize for any confusion caused by the abstract's initial paragraph. We have revised the abstract to address the problem statement and provide an overview of the various techniques discussed in the manuscript. Please find the revised abstract

 

 

2. The current keywords are quite strange. Please choose keywords that will make the article more visible in scientometric databases due to the Article Title.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our article. We appreciate your suggestion to choose keywords that will enhance the visibility of the article in science metric databases. After careful consideration, we have identified the keywords that align with the content and scope of our research

3. Please add the relevant references to Tables 1, 3 for the convenience of the reader.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion to add the relevant references to Tables 1 and 3 in our manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail and the opportunity to enhance the readability of our work. Following your recommendation, we have updated Tables 1 and 3 to include the relevant references.

4. The introduction is so long that the reader feels uncomfortable. Please shorten it and emphasize the research gap.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the introduction section of the review. Based on your comments, we have revised the introduction to better align with the scope and objectives of the review.

5. Please arrange and order the figures in a single style.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made the necessary adjustments to ensure a consistent presentation of the figures throughout the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

The review titled "Synthesis and Characterization of Nanomaterials for Application in Cost-effective Electrochemical Devices" discusses the fascinating topic of cost-effective electrochemical devices (ECDs) applications using various nanomaterials. The review covers several classes of materials. This review is thorough and comprehensive. However, there are a few points that the authors should address before the review is accepted.

1.      The authors should provide schematics of various synthesis methods, as this review is exclusively based on the synthesis. I recommend that the authors do not copy the schematics from other related reviews or manuscripts.

2.      In several cases, the authors have copied and presented full images in this review from various journals (e.g., Figure 4 and Figure 11). Figure 2 is not necessary to present all SEM images, as the authors are relating the same results throughout. So they should preset different dates synthesized from various conditions and present in the manuscript.

3.      The authors should present a table of the best-performing materials and their performance in each material class. This is highly essential to review and understand the field.

4.      It is essential to specify which class of materials and what type of materials exhibit high performance in batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, and sensors.

5.      The authors should cite the relevant references in Tables 1, 2, and 3 (wherever applicable).

6.      The image quality of Figure 11 is inferior, and the letters are hard to read. The authors should provide a revised figure.

7.      The authors should present a table of the best-performing materials and their performance in each class. This is essential for reviewing and understanding the field. The table should include the name of the material, the class of the material, and the synthesis method. The performance of the material (e.g., specific capacity, energy density, power density) and the application of the material (e.g., batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, sensors). I suggest preparing a table for each class separately (batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, sensors)

 

8.      The authors should also briefly discuss the factors that contribute to the performance of the materials. By including these suggestions, the authors will enhance the visibility of their manuscript for a broader audience.

Author Response

The review titled "Synthesis and Characterization of Nanomaterials for Application in Cost-effective Electrochemical Devices" discusses the fascinating topic of cost-effective electrochemical devices (ECDs) applications using various nanomaterials. The review covers several classes of materials. This review is thorough. However, there are a few points that the authors should address before the review is accepted.

 

1. The authors should provide schematics of various synthesis methods, as this review is exclusively based on the synthesis. I recommend that the authors do not copy the schematics from other related reviews or manuscripts.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the inclusion of schematics for various synthesis methods in our review. We would like to clarify that while we understand the importance of original schematics, our objective in this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the synthesis methods and their significance in the field. To ensure accuracy and clarity, we have included schematics that are based on the research conducted by other researchers in the field. We have duly cited these sources to acknowledge their contributions and highlight the importance of their work in the context of our review. By incorporating these schematics, we aim to provide readers with a visual representation of the synthesis methods, aiding in their understanding of the topic. We have taken precautions to avoid copying schematics directly from other related reviews or manuscripts without proper attribution. We intend to utilize these schematics as educational tools and visual aids, ensuring that they are appropriately credited to their original sources. We believe that the inclusion of these schematics strengthens the content of our review and enhances the overall clarity and comprehensiveness of the information presented. However, we acknowledge your suggestion and will consider incorporating original schematics in future revisions of the manuscript. Once again, we appreciate your feedback and suggestions, which contribute to the improvement of our review.

2. 2. In several cases, the authors have copied and presented full images in this review from various journals (e.g., Figure 4 and Figure 11). Figure 2 is not necessary to present all SEM images, as the authors are relating the same results throughout. So they should preset different dates synthesized from various conditions and present them in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your feedback, we deleted fig. 2.

3. The authors should present a table of the best-performing materials and their performance in each material class. This is highly essential to review and understand the field.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We agree that presenting a table of the best-performing materials and their performance in each material class is essential to enhance the understanding of the field. We appreciate your suggestion, and we have incorporated this valuable addition into our revised manuscript. The newly added table, titled "Best-Performing Materials in Electrochemical Devices," provides an organized overview of the top-performing materials within different material classes and their corresponding performance in various electrochemical devices. The table categorizes the devices into batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, and sensors, highlighting the class of materials and the specific types of materials that exhibit high performance in each device category.

1. It is essential to specify which class of materials and what type of materials exhibit high performance in batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, and sensors.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. To address this, we have revised the manuscript and included a comprehensive table “The newly added table, titled "Best-Performing Materials in Electrochemical Devices” that provides detailed information on the class of materials and the type of materials used in each electrochemical device category. The table highlights the specific materials that have demonstrated high performance in each device category.

2. The authors should cite the relevant references in Tables 1, 2, and 3 (wherever applicable).

Response: Thank you for your suggestion to add the relevant references to Tables 1 and 3 in our manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail and the opportunity to enhance the readability of our work. Following your recommendation, we have updated Tables 1 and 3 to include the relevant references.

3. The image quality of Figure 11 is inferior, and the letters are hard to read. The authors should provide a revised figure.

Response: We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the low readability of the letters in the figure. we have reviewed the figure 11 and make the necessary revisions to improve its quality.

7. The authors should present a table of the best-performing materials and their performance in each class. This is essential for reviewing and understanding the field. The table should include the name of the material, the class of the material, and the synthesis method. The performance of the material (e.g., specific capacity, energy density, power density) and the application of the material (e.g., batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, sensors). I suggest preparing a table for each class separately (batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells, sensors)

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We completely agree with your suggestion and acknowledge the importance of providing a comprehensive table that highlights the best-performing materials and their performance in each class. This will greatly enhance the review and aid in the understanding and evaluation of the field. To address this concern, we have revised the manuscript to include a table titled "Best-Performing Materials and Their Performance in Electrochemical Devices." This table presents a compilation of materials, their respective classes, synthesis methods, and performance parameters

1. The authors should also briefly discuss the factors that contribute to the performance of the materials. By including these suggestions, the authors will enhance the visibility of their manuscript for a broader audience.

Response: We appreciate your feedback, we have included a discussion on the factors that contribute to the performance of materials.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is acceptable now.