Simple Synthesis of 3D Ground-Moss-Shaped MnO@N-C Composite as Superior Anode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article deals with the development of a 3D-ground moss-like morphology MnO@N-doped carbon (MnO@N-C) composite. The composite delivered capacity of 563 mAh g−1 at 1.0 A g−1 over 300 cycles, with a high initial coulomb efficiency of 73.2 % owing to improved surface area and internal electron transfer ability of MnO. The research is interesting. I have following few questions about the research:

1. Authors can mention how did new anode compares to upcoming materials like Si anodes. Authors can also refer to papers like: 1. Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1902799. 2. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2020, 3, 7, 6985–6994.

2. The authors did not mention what type of lithiation the MNO@N-C follows.

3. Typically, FEC is useful and essential for Si anodes. Why did the authors use electrolyte with FEC? Authors should provide an explanation for the same in the main text. 

4. Why did authors use low active material % in electrode preparation and reason behind such a low mass loading?

5. What was the scan rate that the authors used for XRD?

6. Authors can explain the different phase changes associated with the reaction on line 213. Also, when discussing impedance, authors take the help of an equivalent circuit. Authors may refer to Carbon 203, 561-570 for reference.

7. Authors mention the first cycle efficiency of about 73.2% with the use of their material. When used in full cell configuration, it will leave the cathode exhausted from its lithium ions. Authors may again refer to Carbon 203, 561-570 and explain that having lithium-reservoir in the system may help with the recovery of lithium-ion losses in SEI formation as well as provide opportunities for materials such as MnO@N-C for practical application purposes.

After these changes and revisions, the manuscript may be accepted for publication.

There are quite a few spelling corrections across the manuscript that authors should take care of.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the paper titled “Simple synthesis of ground moss shaped MnO@N-C composites as superior anode materials for lithium-ion batteries” evaluated the electrochemical performance of MnO@N-C composite as an anode for LIBs. The goal of the paper is interesting, however; it suffers from a scientific point of view and needs to consider the following revision before publishing in Crystals.

 

 1-     In the introduction part, authors need to highlight the other important electrode materials beyond transition metal oxides for an anode of LIBs such as Sn, P, etc. Authors can use the following references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsadv.2022.100233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2020.136227. Then, highlight the possible solutions to increase the performance of carbon-based anode materials.

2-     Authors need to highlight the previous MnO-based anode materials from literature and provide their pros and cons. Then, highlight the novelty of present work.

3-     For the XRD results of MnO and MnO@N-C, please calculate the d spacing and crystallite size using Sherrer equation to compare the anode materials. Please explain the data in the paper. +

4-     For the composite material of SEM images in Figure 2, please provide EDS analysis (map pattern and chemical composition) to check the elemental distributions.

5-     Please provide a SEM cross section of anode of Cu substrate with EDS analysis. Highlight the thickness of coating on Cu substrate.

6-     Authors need to provide a SEM/EDS analysis of anode after cycling to check the stability of electrode.

7-     For the EIS data of both anodes, authors need to provide a EIS data after cycling to check the charge transfer resistance and double layer capacitance values. Also for the the elements in the equivalent circuit, authors need to provide a table with the value of each element to have better understanding of systems.

8-     For the cyclability test, authors just plotted 70 cycles. What is the maximum cycle number the electrode has? Please plot it.

9-     Authors need to provide a comparison table is very important to compare the electrochemical performance of MnO@NC with the Mn-based state-of-the-art performance.

1-  There are some grammatical problems and typos in the manuscript. Please revise accordingly.

1-     There are some grammatical problems and typos in the manuscript. Please revise accordingly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for answering the questions.

For question 5: the scan rate of XRD is too high. Valuable information could be lost with fast scans. 

The paper can be accepted in its present condition.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is ready to publish in the present form.