Next Article in Journal
Design and Validation of a Camera-Based Safety System for Fenceless Robotic Work Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
ZnFe2O4, a Green and High-Capacity Anode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Older Adults’ Experience of an Exergaming Intervention to Improve Balance and Prevent Falls: A Nested Explanatory Qualitative Study
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Study on the Self-Discharge Behavior of Zinc-Air Batteries with CuO Additives

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(24), 11675; https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411675
by Byeong Jin Jeong and Yong Nam Jo *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(24), 11675; https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411675
Submission received: 11 October 2021 / Revised: 30 November 2021 / Accepted: 7 December 2021 / Published: 9 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Electrochemical Energy Storage Devices: Latest Advances and Prospects)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Hello authors,

The work looks interesting, but without presenting the figures in the manuscript, it is not possible to make corrections and observations. It was only possible to make a previous correction of the initial part.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for careful review of our manuscript and providing us with comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. The following responses (the response parts are highlighted in blue color) have been prepared to address the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The next-generation batteries for developing the energy storage systems are interesting and important. The research background, such as the progress of this field, existing research and their advantages/limitations are what the authors should be explaining. In summary, the following minor comments may be considered to improve the quality of this paper and to publish in Applied Sciences.

  1. It is important to presenting the research gap of the previous works after the literature review. The authors should emphasize on the contribution of their work with respect to the other works of the literature. In other words, they should show in detail the difference with respect to the other works. Novelty of the current work must be stated in the last paragraph of the Introduction.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for careful review of our manuscript and providing us with comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. The following responses (the response parts are highlighted in blue color) have been prepared to address the reviewer’s comments in the attachment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper reports the fabrication of different types of CuO nanostructures by hydrothermal method. The prepared CuO nanostructures have been characterized by SEM, XRD, EDS, and TEM. Among all the samples, s-CuO showed the best zinc-ion storage performance with relatively high capacity and good cycling performance. Overall, the work is suitable for publication after addressing the following comments:

  1. In Fig. 2, the XRD peaks can be indexed and the standard pattern of CuO can be included in the figure.
  2. The BET surface areas and pore size distribution of the three different CuO samples can be measured and compared.
  3. A Table comparing the capacity and cycling performance of s-CuO with other reported materials can be provided.
  4. In the Introduction, some references describing the advantages of LIBs, such as Chemical Society Reviews 49 (14), 4681-4736 (2020); Nature Energy, 1, 16071 (2016); Materials Today, 18, 252-264 (2015); Nanoscale, 2010, 2, 1294-1305; Materials Horizons 5 (3), 394-407 (2018) and ACS nano 11 (6), 5293-5308 (2017) can be included and cited.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for careful review of our manuscript and providing us with comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. The following responses (the response parts are highlighted in blue color) have been prepared to address the reviewer’s comments in the attachment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop