Molten Metals and Molten Carbonates in Solid Oxide Direct Carbon Fuel Cell Anode Chamber: Liquid Metal Anode and Hybrid Direct Carbon Fuel Cells
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments:
The manuscript provides valuable insights into the use of molten metals and molten carbonates in solid oxide direct carbon fuel cells. The topic is interesting and relevant to the field. However, there are a few minor remarks that require attention to improve clarity and readability. Please address the following concerns:
1. Figure 1: The label "electrolyte" is not well distinguishable. Please consider using a different font style or color to make it more clear and legible.
2. Line 64: "can be dissolved" instead of "can dissolve" would be more appropriate.
3. Figure 3: Please indicate the source of the data in the caption to provide proper attribution.
4. Abbreviations: There are numerous abbreviations used throughout the manuscript. While some abbreviations are standard and commonly used, it is advisable to use the full names of terms at least once to remind readers of their meaning. In image captions, it is preferable to use full terms instead of abbreviations.
5. Line 799: There is an excessive "." present. Please revise and remove the extra period.
Please address these concerns to improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review summarized the recently progress of liquid metals, liquid carbonates, and their mixtures as the anode of SO-DCFCs and compared their performance to that of conventional SO-DCFCs. This is an interesting topic and however, there are several points need to address:
1) what’s the advantage and disadvantage of SO-DCFCs compared to other types of FCs such as PEMFCs. Should state it clearly in the introduction parts.
2) How about other low melting points metals, such as Bi, Hg, In, for the SO-DCFCs? Can they be used into the SO-DCFCs as well? If not, is there any reason to explain why?
3) Should give a brief summary/ perspective (how to improve it, what’s the challenges right now) in the end of each section rather than just listing the current progress.
4) Some typos should be corrected, such as Page 3, line 109.
5) Besides the anode materials, will the morphology, porous structure of solid carbons affect their DCFCs performance? Because if different types of carbons used with different anode materials from different literatures, it may be meaningless to compare them together.
6) For reaction(7), since both C and MnOx were solid, how can these two react with each other if they can’t physically contact with together? Did the author mean that the metal oxides were only generated onto the solid carbon surface?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewing Report for the manuscript ID: catalysts-2471622
Here is my reviewing report for the manuscript under title “Molten metals and molten carbonates in solid oxide direct carbon fuelcell anode chamber: liquid metal anode and hybrid direct carbon fuel cells”
for Catalysts with ID number: ID: catalysts-2471622. Kindly find it.
In this review, the author reports an overview of solid oxide direct carbon fuel cells (SO-DCFCs) with liquid metals, liquid carbonates, and mixed liquid metals/liquid carbonates in the anode chamber.
Overall, the topic of the review is highly interesting, and the author covers the topic with enough information for the readers. However, the manuscript needs to be extensively revised before accepting for publication in Catalysts.
The authors need to revise their manuscript according to the following suggestions.
1- The paper's title is brief and reflects the main theme of the paper.
2- The abstract concisely conveys the argument and conclusions of the manuscript. The keywords are suitable to the article can be found in the current registers or indexes.
3- References Section: The references are accurate and relevant for the topic of the paper.
4- The language of the manuscript needs to be carefully checked and edited. For example, some use Figure, and others use Fig. as in line 219, 220, and 276. And “Tab 1” in line 242.
5- All figures need to be cited unless they are prepared by the author.
6- The resolution of figures needs to improve.
7- In Figure 4; the author needs to add the sentence how he collects this information (e.g. Web of Science) and the time duration.
8- I recommend the author to add more relevant figures to support the discussion in different sections of the manuscript.
9- The author cites more old articles in this work; thus, he needs to cite more recent articles relevant to this work.
Considering all that I already mentioned, I suggest publishing the paper in catalyst after major changes.
All regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The language of the manuscript needs to be carefully checked and edited. For example, some use Figure, and others use Fig. as in line 219, 220, and 276. And “Tab 1” in line 242.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewing Report for the manuscript ID: catalysts-2471622 (2nd revision)
Dear Ms. Kim Jin
Here is my reviewing report for the manuscript under title “Molten metals and molten carbonates in solid oxide direct carbon fuel
cell anode chamber: liquid metal anode and hybrid direct carbon fuel cells”
for Catalysts with ID number: ID: catalysts-2471622. Kindly find it.
Although the author made some modifications to the revised form, still needs to be further revised before accepting for publication in Catalysts.
The authors need to revise their manuscript according to the following suggestions.
1- The title now is brief and reflects the main theme of the paper.
2- The resolution of figures needs to improve. Some text is not clear and needs to be written in clear font size.
3- In Figure 4; the author needs to add the sentence how he collects this information and the time duration.
Considering all that I have already mentioned, I suggest publishing the paper in catalyst after minor changes.
All regards,
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
