Powering the Future: Progress and Hurdles in Developing Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Components to Achieve Department of Energy Goals—A Systematic Review
, Mohanraj Thangamuthu 2,*, Sakthivel Gnanasekaran 3,*, Suresh Gopi 4, Tamilvanan Ayyasamy 5 and Sujit S. Pardeshi 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper describes a review of the progress in developing PEMFC components while highlighting the persistent challenges. Notably, the focus has been on achieving the ambitious targets the US-DOE has set for cost, durability, and performance.
First and foremost, the review lacks a proper structure. By definition, a systematic review is a comprehensive and structured synthesis of existing research evidence on a specific topic or question. It follows a rigorous methodology to ensure transparency, replicability, and impartiality.
Long sections are observed without division into sub sections for concise review. For example:
Section 1 on 7.5 pages without division.
Section 3 on 9 Pages without dividing into sections.
Table 1 on page 6 is taken from reference [36], however, the source of Table 2, 3 & 4 is not known.
It is recommended to split the long tables in more than one smaller tables for better visibility.
While discussing the feasibility and the progress of PEMFC, it should be highlighted how to reduce the cost of Pt and other rare materials involved in the upcoming versions.
PEMFC components, including the membrane, catalysts, and bipolar plates, need to withstand harsh operating conditions. Ensuring long-term durability and longevity is essential for commercial viability. This feature should be specifically studied in the review. The lifetime of PEM is the main factor restricting the commercialization of PEMFC. The complexity of operating conditions as highlighted in the review must be followed by Life Cycle Assessment of PEMFC that requires discussion in this review. Technology readiness level (TRL) chart is also required for indepth understanding of the maturity of PEMFC technology.
Also, in the summary, authors must highlight the barriers in the US DOE 2035/2050 PEMFC targets and possible solutions.
It's essential to follow the established guidelines for conducting systematic reviews to ensure rigor and transparency in the analysis.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing needed.
Author Response
Sustainability-2658455
POWERING THE FUTURE: PROGRESS AND HURDLES IN DEVELOPING PROTON EXCHANGE MEMBRANE FUEL CELL COMPONENTS TO ACHIEVE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GOALS - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for accepting our manuscript for further processing in your esteemed Journal " Sustainability." The authors expressed their sincere thanks to the reviewers for finetuning this manuscript. We have taken utmost care to address all the comments raised by the reviewers with suitable justifications. The changes that we are made are highlighted in red color. We shall be happy if our revised manuscript is accepted for publication in view of our explanations in this reply and revision of the manuscript. The detailed information is given below for your kind reference.
Response to Reviewer 1 comments:
Dear Reviewer, We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable time, expertise, and constructive feedback during the review process of our manuscript. The table below offers a detailed response to each of the comments raised. We have thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered all the comments and suggestions and have incorporated the recommended changes into the manuscript. We highlighted the modified contents in yellow to make the revisions easily identifiable. These changes have significantly strengthened the manuscript's clarity, accuracy, and quality.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review entitled “Powering the future: Progress and hurdles in developing proton exchange membrane fuel cell components to achieve department of energy goals-a systematic review” by Madheswaran et al systematically states the prospects and bottlenecks of PEMFCs. This review is very interesting and therefore I recommend the publication in sustainability after addressing the following minor issues.
1. This review mainly discusses the research progress and desired goals of proton exchange membrane batteries, but there is too little description of the bottlenecks encountered by proton exchange membrane batteries and the routes to solve them.
2. The content from lines 116 to 135 needs to be refined.
3. The format of the entire review needs to be carefully revised. For example, the word in line 433 “0.125 gPGM/kW”.
4. Some descriptive language is not rigorous enough.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome descriptive language is not rigorous enough.
Author Response
Sustainability-2658455
POWERING THE FUTURE: PROGRESS AND HURDLES IN DEVELOPING PROTON EXCHANGE MEMBRANE FUEL CELL COMPONENTS TO ACHIEVE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GOALS - A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for accepting our manuscript for further processing in your esteemed Journal " Sustainability." The authors expressed their sincere thanks to the reviewers for finetuning this manuscript. We have taken utmost care to address all the comments raised by the reviewers with suitable justifications. The changes that we are made are highlighted in red color. We shall be happy if our revised manuscript is accepted for publication in view of our explanations in this reply and revision of the manuscript. The detailed information is given below for your kind reference.
Response to Reviewer 2 comments:
Dear Reviewer, kindly accept our sincere gratitude for your positive review. Kindly refer to the table for the responses provided after carefully considering each of your comments. We highlighted the modified contents in yellow to make the revisions easily identifiable. These changes have significantly strengthened the manuscript's clarity, accuracy, and quality.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter incorporating all necessary changes, the paper is in good shape. Therefore, no further improvements are not needed in my opinion.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor editing maybe needed.
