Surfactant Improved Interface Morphology and Mass Transfer for Electrochemical Oxygen-Evolving Reaction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript titled " Surfactant Improved Interface Morphology and Mass Transfer for Electrochemical Oxygen-Evolving Reaction", Mingze Zhu et al report an improved electrocatalytic oxidation of oxygen–evolving reaction that is based on IrO2 nanoparticles. The authors have provided a detailed description of the preparation of the nanoparticles, as well as the subsequent characterizations. Furthermore, the authors have assessed the experimental parameters (LSV of OER performance and EIS) to optimize the electrochemical performance. The authors also determined that the IrO2 nanoparticles are the stable and better performance of OER applications. The electrocatalyst performance is compared to those that have been reported in the literature. Finally, the authors demonstrate that the IrO2 nanoparticles can be used for OER applications. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and clearly written. I believe that the content of this manuscript is appealing to scientists and researchers who are working in the field of electrocatalyst OER applications.
1. Fig.1b is not clear. Please provide a good image.
2. The present studies you have used three metal SDS why?
3. Fig.1a presented SDS at different concentrations. But the remaining figures show ED0 and ED5. Why?
4. In Fig. 4a Chronopotential stability test ED0 not stable why?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Surfactant Improved Interface Morphology and Mass Transfer 1 for Electrochemical Oxygen-Evolving Reaction
This paper reports pin-coated the nanoscale IrO2 catalyst for oxygen evolution reaction (OER)
The author hopes to increase hydrophilicity using SDS sulfactant. As a result, the activity for OER is increased. Even though this paper showed enhanced activity at mass transfer limitation, the manuscript is not acceptable for publication in current form due to lack of supported experimental data. Furthermore, some point should be confirmed. Some comments about this paper for revision are the following:
1. The authors have improved the performance of the electrode at all by using the same iridium catalyst but with a different SDS. This is the interesting point and should be confirmed some point. The SEM images of catalyst layer of ED0 and ED 5 is significantly different. To shows the SDS effects more clearly, BET and SEM images of ED 1,3 and 5 should be shown.
2. The authors discuss that “SDS makes the catalyst particles ultrafine in size and uniformly dispersed”. However, Authors uses same IrO2 nanoparticles. Can the particle size be changed only by adding SDS in simple spin coating when the iridium particles are determined? The authors prove this by TEM images and XRD of ED0 and ED 5 and discuss the process of particle size change.
3. The existence of SDS at electrode should be confirmed. XPS or SEM-EDS is suggested.
4. The existence of SDS at electrode after OER test also be should be confirmed
5. Did the author use a rotating electrode? For OER, rotating electrode is necessary to remove oxygen bubble. In rotating electrode, the trend would be different at different rotating speed. If not, please discuss these to shows the insight of this paper.
6. Figure 1 should be modified. (a), (b), at 200mA is located at wrong position.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors response all comment. So this paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
