MnO2/Carbon Nanofibers Material as High-Performance Anode for Lithium-Ion Batteries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author
Overall, this work is interesting and deserves to be considered for publication in Coatings. Moreover, this work is well-written and has good amount of characterization and electrochemical data. However, before I recommend its acceptance, some issues must be clarified and a major revision is needed.
Some other issues that need to be addressed are:
1. It is not clear the contribution of the manuscript to the empirical literature.
2. The novelty of the work should be boldly explicated. The main novelty in this work must be clearly pointed out in the introduction.
3. The authors should mention the concept of this work with the progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies.
4. It lacks comparison with the literature. A table would be welcomed. Comparing the main outcomes of this work with some of the literature.
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11070836
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c06054
5. Why does the cycling curve fluctuate in figure 8?
6. Line 182-183: “In addition, the MnO2/CNFs shows better rate capability compared to the MnO2 NTs nanoparticle electrode at various rates from 0.1 to 0.5 A g-1(Fig. 9).”….can the authors provide a better explanation why? What is the role of each MnO2 and CNFs?
7. “3.3. Analysis of electrode structure after circulation”...instead circulation write “cycling” or “charge/discharge”
8. Lines 192-194: “….the porous fiber can release the expanded 192 volume of the alloy effectively during the lithium process, thus maintaining the stability 193 of the structure and improving the stability and efficiency of the cycle”…could the authors make a scheme to facilitate the readers to understand what is written?
9. All conclusions must be convincing statements on what was found to be novel, and impactful based on the strong support of the data/results/discussion.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewers
Reviewer #1
Thank you for your comments to our manuscript. We have made revisions accordingly (changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript).
Comment 1. It is not clear the contribution of the manuscript to the empirical literature.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have added more descriptions in the revised manuscript.
- The novelty of the work should be boldly explicated. The main novelty in this work must be clearly pointed out in the introduction.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have added more descriptions of the main novelty in this work in the introduction.
- The authors should mention the concept of this work with the progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have added more descriptions of the main novelty in this work for the introduction.
- It lacks comparison with the literature. A table would be welcomed. Comparing the main outcomes of this work with some of the literature.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The impedance spectra of electrodes have been added in Fig. 10. We have added the description in the revised manuscript.
- Line 182-183: “In addition, the MnO2/CNFs shows better rate capability compared to the MnO2 NTs nanoparticle electrode at various rates from 0.1 to 0.5 A g-1(Fig. 9).”….can the authors provide a better explanation why? What is the role of each MnO2 and CNFs?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The impedance spectra of electrodes have been added in Fig. 10. We have added the explanation in the revised manuscript, 20 % MnO2/CNF improves the conductivity on account of the unique structure with the carbon and has the best comprehensive performance.
- “3. Analysis of electrode structure after circulation”...instead circulation write “cycling” or “charge/discharge”
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have changed the description of the main novelty in this work.
- Lines 192-194: “….the porous fiber can release the expanded 192 volume of the alloy effectively during the lithium process, thus maintaining the stability 193 of the structure and improving the stability and efficiency of the cycle”…could the authors make a scheme to facilitate the readers to understand what is written?
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have changed the confusing description of the main novelty for “the porous fiber” in this work.
- All conclusions must be convincing statements on what was found to be novel, and impactful based on the strong support of the data/results/discussion.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have changed the description of the main novelty in this work.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is devoted for MnO2 carbon nanofibers material as high performance anode for lithium-ion batteries. The topic is generally interesting, however the paper contain unexplained places (below) and need major revisions.
Lines 72-74 preparation of MnO2 nanotubes, more explanations are needed and corresponding reference should be added.
The aim of the paper should be more clearly formulated.
Details of electrochemical measurements should be described in the part 2 Experimental.
Figure 6 should be more discussed.
Conclusions should be rewritten in more informative way.
All typos should be corrected, for example line 65 Oxide, line 173 cycling, line 186 rate.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewers
Reviewer #2
Thank you for your comments to our manuscript. We have made revisions accordingly (changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript).
The paper is devoted for MnO2 carbon nanofibers material as high performance anode for lithium-ion batteries. The topic is generally interesting, however the paper contain unexplained places (below) and need major revisions.
Lines 72-74 preparation of MnO2 nanotubes, more explanations are needed and corresponding reference should be added.
The aim of the paper should be more clearly formulated.
Details of electrochemical measurements should be described in the part 2 Experimental.
Figure 6 should be more discussed.
Conclusions should be rewritten in more informative way.
All typos should be corrected, for example line 65 Oxide, line 173 cycling, line 186 rate.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have added more descriptions in the revised manuscript.
The impedance spectra of electrodes have been added in Fig. 10. We have added the explanation in the revised manuscript, 20 % MnO2/CNF improves the conductivity on account of the unique structure with the carbon and has the best comprehensive performance.
We have changed the confusing description of the main novelty for “All typos” in this work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Ref_comments to the paper titled as “MnO2/Carbon nanofibers material as high performance anode for lithium-ion batteries” written by the authors: Dandan Ma, Xin Mu, Guiqing Zhao, Xiangge Qin and Meili Qi.
Despite of a large number of the works in the improvement of the properties of the materials for the lithium-ion batteries, it is useful the novel search and the characterization process to extend the database of the perspective materials for this aim. From this point of view the current article is actual and modern.
For the first. The authors have made nice literature search connected with the analysis of 43 references. Good! The manuscripts published last 5 years have been included in this analysis as well.
For the second. The materials synthesis and characterization methods are useful. Schematic of the synthesis procedure of the MnO2/Carbon nanofibers is illustrated the synthesis approach with good advantage. The MnO2/Carbon nanofibers have been investigated using classical instruments based on the X-ray diffraction, scanning and transmission electron microscopies. For example, the crystal structures and phase information of MnO2 NTs, 5 % MnO2/CNFs and 20 % MnO2/CNFs have been characterized by the X-ray powder diffraction. In this concern, I would like to as the authors why they have used so large content of the introduced structure? Sometimes at the little percent (0.05 wt.%; 1 wt.%, 1.5 wt.%) of the incorporated structures the features of the matrix can be dramatically changed. For example, it should be revealed from more detailed analysis of data from Figure 7: the discharge/charge curves in selected cycles for 5 % MnO2/ CNFs(a) and 20 % MnO2/ CNFs(b).
Well, the electrochemical performance and electrode structure after circulation has been analyzed. Thus, after the test of the MnO2/Carbon nanofibers as the anode material in lithium-ion batteries, they have exhibited the superior performance and excellent long cycling performance. This is important when recharging the lithium batteries.
Conclusion part should be extended. It is not connected with the important basic results.
As for my local opinion, this paper can be published after the minor corrections.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Ref_comments to the paper titled as “MnO2/Carbon nanofibers material as high performance anode for lithium-ion batteries” written by the authors: Dandan Ma, Xin Mu, Guiqing Zhao, Xiangge Qin and Meili Qi.
Despite of a large number of the works in the improvement of the properties of the materials for the lithium-ion batteries, it is useful the novel search and the characterization process to extend the database of the perspective materials for this aim. From this point of view the current article is actual and modern.
For the first. The authors have made nice literature search connected with the analysis of 43 references. Good! The manuscripts published last 5 years have been included in this analysis as well.
For the second. The materials synthesis and characterization methods are useful. Schematic of the synthesis procedure of the MnO2/Carbon nanofibers is illustrated the synthesis approach with good advantage. The MnO2/Carbon nanofibers have been investigated using classical instruments based on the X-ray diffraction, scanning and transmission electron microscopies. For example, the crystal structures and phase information of MnO2 NTs, 5 % MnO2/CNFs and 20 % MnO2/CNFs have been characterized by the X-ray powder diffraction. In this concern, I would like to as the authors why they have used so large content of the introduced structure? Sometimes at the little percent (0.05 wt.%; 1 wt.%, 1.5 wt.%) of the incorporated structures the features of the matrix can be dramatically changed. For example, it should be revealed from more detailed analysis of data from Figure 7: the discharge/charge curves in selected cycles for 5 % MnO2/ CNFs(a) and 20 % MnO2/ CNFs(b).
Well, the electrochemical performance and electrode structure after circulation has been analyzed. Thus, after the test of the MnO2/Carbon nanofibers as the anode material in lithium-ion batteries, they have exhibited the superior performance and excellent long cycling performance. This is important when recharging the lithium batteries.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have added more descriptions in the revised manuscript.
The impedance spectra of electrodes have been added in Fig. 10. We have added the explanation in the revised manuscript, 20 % MnO2/CNF improves the conductivity on account of the unique structure with the carbon and has the best comprehensive performance.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors make proper corrections according to reviewer remarks and I suggest publish the paper as it is.
