Cs4PbBr6 Combined with Graphite as Anode for High-Performance Lithium Batteries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reports an evaluation of Cs4PbBr6 quantum dots milled with graphite as an anode for Li batteries.
Critical comments.
1) The manuscript contains many typing and grammatical errors, which could be solved by checking the text with appropriate software such as Grammarly.
2) The materials under study were characterized by SEM, IR, and XRD data. But, for graphite-containing solids, instead IR spectroscopy, the best option is the use of Raman spectra, particularly to follow the effect of the grinding process on the graphite disordering process.
3) In the manuscript conclusions, the authors conclude that “at the same time Cs4PbBr6 as quantum dots can reduce surface stress and make the surface more smooth”. This is a hypothesis, not a conclusion properly supported by the experimental data.
4) Also, in Conclusions, the statement “Ge and Pb as the main storage in the glassy based coins have a stable environment, which could cycle 1000s at 0.5Ag-1 current density, how to enhance the proverstik stable ability still was a challenge for us”, is a hypothesis, which must be supported by experimental evidence.
In summary: This manuscript could be considered for publication after significant revision and improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is devoted to the study of the effect of graphene doping of Cs4PbBr6 quantum dots, which have great prospects for use as electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries. In general, the presented direction of research is quite promising, the results obtained are not in doubt, as they are confirmed by a sufficiently large number of different research methods. In general, the article corresponds to the subject of the declared journal and can be accepted for publication after the authors answer a number of questions that the reviewer has when reading it.
1. In the introduction, the authors should describe in more detail the novelty and relevance of their work, as well as provide more comparative data from other works that reflect the efficiency of using graphene in lithium-ion batteries.
2. Morphological studies require additional explanations, in particular, the presented maps of the distribution of elements do not indicate the presence of graphene, although at high concentrations of the dopant it should be reflected in the form of carbon.
3. The results of the degradation of the studied materials presented for samples after life tests require additional processing. In particular, the authors should indicate exactly how the positions and shapes of the diffraction lines have changed, calculate the deviation of the parameters, and also determine the degree of crystallinity before and after testing.
4. Cyclic tests require additional explanations, firstly, what is the reason for the appearance of local maxima during cyclic tests, whether this is due to structural changes in the material or equipment error, and secondly, it is necessary to present the degree of degradation of the capacity after testing in order to determine the stability of the material.
5. In the conclusion, further plans for the continuation of these studies and their prospects should be reflected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors answered all the questions, the article can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
