Recent Trends in Transition Metal Phosphide (TMP)-Based Seawater Electrolysis for Hydrogen Evolution
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Recent trends in transition metal phosphides TMPs-based seawater electrolysis for hydrogen evolution” by Tahri et al., has summarized the current progress in the subject domain. The review is well designed. All aspects are well covered with latest examples. However, I have some comments that can help to improve the manuscript. Therefore, these should be addressed by the authors before final evaluation.
Comments:
i. The introduction section needs updating with recently published articles. Please check recently published literature and update it accordingly. The authors can go through these publications
ii. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202208358
iii.
iv. Equations are not properly aligned throughout the manuscript. Please correct it to avoid irregularities. It is strongly recommended to use either equation editor function or some software such as math type etc.,
v. Pictures provided are not of good quality. Check and provide according to the journal standard.
vi. The manuscript lacks in latest research progress especially in 2023. I recommend to go through 2023 publications and update the contents accordingly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-022-4608-8 ; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-023-08423-5 ; https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202206533 etc
Manuscript English is not up to the quality. It should be revised thoroughly to make is more suitable, clear and concise. My advice is to get it improved through some field expert.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
"Please see the attachment.
Thanks
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the Authors
In this work, the authors summarized a brief review of advanced technologies in transition metal phosphides (TMPs)-based seawater electrolysis catalysts, including transition metals doped with phosphorus, nanosheet structure of phosphides, and structural engineering. Generally speaking, this paper is well organized, and the content has been prepared systematically. This work deserves publication in sustainability after some revision.
1. In the introduction section, the authors need to further add and highlight the advantages of TMPs compared with other transition metal compounds.
2. Please compare the advantages and disadvantages of different methods for synthesizing TMPs to enhance readability.
3. In the “5. Seawater electrolysis with TMPs catalysis” section, the authors should add tables to compare the HER catalytic activity and stability of TMPs after doping, phase or structural engineering.
4. This article has two tables 1, please rearrange them. Moreover, stability is an important parameter for evaluating the performance of electrocatalysts, the authors should add relevant data when comparing OER performances of catalysts.
5. Figures 4 and 5 are not clear, please modify them.
6. Please standardize the format of references in this paper. In addition, several highly related works about TMPs in water electrolysis were recommended (Chem.-A Eur. J. 2020, 26, 13305-13310; Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 536,147909; Nanoscale 2021, 13, 14179-14185).
Language is worth appreciating.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer comments
Title: Recent trends in transition metal phosphides TMPs-based seawater electrolysis for hydrogen evolution
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2439014
This manuscript reviews the recent advances in TMPs-based catalysts for the electrolysis of seawater. The authors emphasized various aspects during this review. The paper presents the discussion impressively. The work scope is also interesting. Therefore, I recommend accepting this paper for publication after attending to the following concerns.
1. This is a well-written and well-conducted review though there are few review papers reported in this similar field. The authors need to critically explain how to make a good contribution to the field by demonstrating this timely review.
2. I have a few minor comments that I think would improve the paper. First, I think the authors could provide more detail about the statistical methods used in seawater electrolysis. Second, I think the authors could discuss the implications of seawater electrolyzers in more detail.
3. Authors can include a few more reports and figures.
4. Authors suggested referring to these papers and citing them: Catal. Commun. 2022, 106382; Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2023, 48 (44), 16569-16592; ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 3357-3375
5. Overall, I think this is a good review paper and I recommend that it be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
REVIEW ON
Recent trends in transition metal phosphides TMPs-based seawater electrolysis
for hydrogen evolution
Hydrogen is possible the most promising fuel of the future. Hydrogen could be obtained from water electrolysis, which is a known, but still crucial subject, because of the technology. Because seawater is the largest resource of water on earth, and a good electrolyte, it becomes one of the most interesting subjects of study. The competitive chloride evolution, anodic oxygen evolution, and cathodic hydrogen evolution push the research in area of catalytic electrodes.
This paper is a review on electrocatalytic electrodes for seawater electrolysis and focus on the main subject, the chemical nature (type) of electrode, namely the phosphides (TMPs).
The authors discussed about the structure of phosphides (TMPs) and made a classification based on their performance. Seawater electrolysis reaction were explained in relation with seawater chemical composition with or without other additives as NaOH and the emergent technologies which could use this, are presented.
Characteristics of the catalytic electrodes, as element doping, Structure of bimetal phosphide phases, Compounds of TMPs were discussed, with examples of results obtained different investigations methods as: SEM, TEM, HRTEM, SEAD, polarization and chronopotentiometric curves.
The conclusions are very well presented. This paper could be a good instrument for researchers who wants to who want to deepen the research and knowledge in phosphides (TMPs) electrodes for application of seawater electrolysis.
I do have 2 observations, one major:
Observation I. Correct the references, everywhere is needed, with the standard abbreviation of the journal’s names.
Most of the references are not written correctly: in the instructions for authors, it is written that the name of the Journal should be abbreviated. Yes, but that means a standard abbreviation, so anyone reading the reference could identify the journal.
For exemple, reference no.2:
„Tian, X.; Lu, X. F.; Xia, B. Y.; Lou, X. W. D. J. J., Advanced electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction in energy 448 conversion technologies. 2020, 4, (1), 45-68.”
Which is the Journal?!?! Searching on google, I found the journal „Joule” , In this case, the name is short, you can’t write an abbreviation!
The correct reference 2
„Tian, X.; Lu, X. F.; Xia, B. Y.; Lou, X. W. D., Advanced electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction in energy 448 conversion technologies. Joule, 2020, 4, (1), 45-68.”
Another example, reference 3:
Yang, Y.; Yu, Y.; Li, J.; Chen, Q.; Du, Y.; Rao, P.; Li, R.; Jia, C.; Kang, Z.; Deng, P. J. N.-M. L., Engineering ruthenium-based 450 electrocatalysts for effective hydrogen evolution reaction. 2021, 13, 1-20.
Which is the Journal?!?!
Search for the article, find in this case:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34302536/
If you look on the right side , at „Cite” – you will find the abbreviated name Nanomicro Lett
Yang, Y.; Yu, Y.; Li, J.; Chen, Q.; Du, Y.; Rao, P.; Li, R.; Jia, C.; Kang, Z.; Deng, P. J., Engineering ruthenium-based 450 electrocatalysts for effective hydrogen evolution reaction, Nanomicro Lett, 2021, 13, 1-20.
Hints
-If you search on google, you could find the standard abbreviations for any journal.
-you may go on journal sites, where you can find „cite” or „cite as” and you will find the abbreviated name of journal.
Observation II. It is a review, and the number of references could be enough, but there are also some recent reviews (2022, 2023) on seawater electrolysis from mdpi which might be taken into consideration. Please add a statement, where you consider (introduction or conclusion), a comparison or underline what it is the original point of view of this paper comparing with the other reviews.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript “Recent trends in transition metal phosphides TMPs-based sea-water electrolysis for hydrogen evolution” reviewed the advanced technologies of transition metal phosphorus-based seawater electrolysis catalysts, including phosphorus-doped transition metals and phosphide nanosheet structure and structural engineering, and made great progress in constructing electrocatalysts for seawater cracking in H2 production by using atomic, molecular and nanoscale material engineering methods. It can be published in “Sustainability” after major revision. The concerns which should be considered by the authors are as follows:
1. One way to classify TMP is mentioned in the manuscript, please add on what basis the classification is.
2. Catalytic electrolysis can improve the selectivity of TMPs for corrosion and oxidation, the process may attack the catalyst, produce toxic chlorite, and greatly reduce efficiency, please explain how chlorite affects efficiency.
3. The manuscript mentioned doping as a common but useful method of modulating electronic structures, which can be divided into metal doping and non-metal doping, please add what is metal doping and what is non-metallic doping.
4. There are formatting errors in the manuscript, and it is recommended to modify. Such as: no page number, etc.
5. The manuscript mentioned that “electrocatalytic cracking” is a safe and effective method for generating H2, and it is recommended to add other methods for generating H2 and the advantages of electrocatalytic cracking. The authors can refer to the following literature. (Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 2023, 331, 122655; Nano Energy, 2023, 107, 108162)
6. The manuscript mentioned the application of defect engineering, but does not describe it in detail, and it is recommended to add relevant content. The authors can refer to the following literature. Bai et al. summarized various methods and characterization techniques for manufacturing defects in photocatalytic materials, and discuss some recent advances in defective photocatalytic materials in energy-related applications (Nano Energy, 2018, 53, 296-336). Shi et al. provided a synthesis of the latest breakthrough in the rational design of NH3 semiconductor photocatalysts, providing a useful scaffold for future research in the emerging field (ACS Catalysis, 2019, 9, 9739–9750). Song et al. introduced the application report of the defective semiconductor-based SERS platform, which meets the urgent need to summarize the latest developments in SERS material design based on semiconductor defect engineering, and highlights the attractive research and application prospects of semiconductor-based SERS (Chemical Science, 2022, 5).
7. Proper nouns that appear in manuscripts are suggested to be added to the nomenclature at the end of the article. Eg: TMPs.
8. Hydrogen production by seawater cracking has been extensively studied. The innovation of this manuscript needs to be strengthened.
9. There are some formatting issues. Eg: The format of Equation (2) is not consistent with Equations (1), (3), and (4).
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
In this review, advanced technologies in transition metal phosphides-based seawater electrolysis catalysts are discussed, including transition metals doped with phosphorus, nanosheet structure of phosphides, and structural engineering. Although the review is interesting and have latest research progress in the subject filed; still there are some mistakes/concerns that needs to be addressed before final publication. Some recommendations are given below:
1. Some figures in the review are blur. Authors should provide clear images in the revised review.
2. It is best to keep the use of specific nouns consistently (Line 130 and 131) and there more same error in the review. Please carefully check the errors in the revised review and correct them meticulously.
3. Equations are not properly aligned throughout the manuscript. Please correct it to avoid irregularities. It is strongly recommended to use either equation editor function or some software such as math type etc.,
4. The overall English of the review is acceptable and well written. However, there are few typos and grammatical errors within the text. Please revise them carefully.
5. Its better to write the noun abbreviations with the brackets not quotation marks.
minor
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
