Hierarchical Porous Carbon Fibers for Enhanced Interfacial Electron Transfer of Electroactive Biofilm Electrode
, Zhisong Lu 1,2 and Yan Qiao 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manusccript is focused to an interestin topic, and must be accepted. There are some details that must be corrected before publication:
Line 100 Figure 1, it would be desirable to denote the techniques used in each photograph, it could be a header.
Line 104-112, Consider to interchange the figures in the box and make them larger, since they are the ones that are discussed in the text. As they are placed inside the figure, it is difficult to appreciate the scales/values.
Line 141 reaction3; it could be reactions instead of reaction3.
Line 185, independent of flavin.15; Include parenthesis in the reference.
Line 195 of electroactive biofilms.27; Include parenthesis in the reference.
Line 242, Zn(NO3)2·6H2O; subscripts must be used in the chemical formula.
Line 249, reported,29,30; include parenthesis.
Lines 254-257; Indicate the equipment that has been used to this treatment.
Line 271-272, Na2HPO4, 6 g 271 L-1, KH2PO4, 3 g L-1, NaCl, 0.5 g L-1, NH4Cl, 1 g L-1, MgSO4, 1 mM, CaCl2, 0.1 mM; subscript must be used.
Line 287, N2 adsorption; use subscript
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for you kindly suggestions and comments to the manuscript. All of the comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript and highlighted the changes in red color. Please see the attachment for the detail responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have reported a study on hierarchical porous carbon fibers for enhanced interfacial electron transfer of electroactive biofilm electrode. The manuscript is very well-written, and data are well-presented. There are few comments that needed to be addressed:
1) Can authors explain a bit more on the DFT model for pore distribution?
2) In figure 4, how many repeats of experiment for each of data points need to be clarified in the caption of figure.
3) A photo of MFC set-up should be provided.
4) In figure 3b and d, how were the peak current values measured or recorded? so DPV was performed at an interval (e.g., 2h, 1d, 2d, etc) in the same solution with same electrode? and for the decreasing peak current, it was the same method?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for you kindly suggestions and comments to the manuscript. All of the comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript and highlighted the changes in red color. Please see the attachment for the detail responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have satisfactorily addressed all the comments.
