Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors synthesized four kinds of polymer particles and used as adhesives separators
in the lithium battery. The electrochemical performance test of the assembled lithium battery shows that the polymer particle adhesive G3 can not only provide a strong adhesion between the battery separator and pole piece, but also can not affect the discharge capacity and capacity retention rate of assembled lithium batteries at different discharge rates and is conducive to the stability and safety of lithium batteries and can improve the preparation efficiency of lithium batteries. I think the ms can be considered for publication, but after tackling out the following serious comments:

 

1.       It is good to study and compare performance of four polymers, but where is the benchmark or commercial material, for example one of the polyolefin separators. Especially you conveyed this very well in the introduction. If you consider LS as a benchmark, please write more details, or clarify throughout the ms.

2.       I would like to see DSC results for determination Tg and would be better to use the DSC curves in the paper to see the thermal behavior of your polymers.

3.       In Figure 10, the colors in a and b are not matched. Please revise all figures in the ms. At the same time, the authors have to define ω  and S in Figure 10b.

4.       The authors showed include charge-discharge curves in the paper to see their cells charge and discharge behavior. I wonder why the authors excluded the original data in many parts throughout the manuscript.

5.       The conclusion need to be revised, the authors should write a solid and clear summary about their work!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article reports an interesting work on the development of  Lithium Battery Separator

Authors must describe in detail the innovation of this work compared to the literature and also the advantage of this material over others.
More details about sample preparation are needed and the results should be further discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

LS should be defined in the manuscript 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments have been included in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx