Capacitive Ferrosoferric Oxide as an Anode to Enhance the Electrical Energy Output and Storage of Microbial Fuel Cells

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is scientifically sound, and while there is new information here, the methodology novelty is somewhat adequate.

 

In a present state the manuscript submitted is adequate and to be recommended for publication with “major” correction. 

 

Listed of the corrections and question:

 

11.     Abstract

 

i.                 Fisrts two sentences should be release.

ii.                Carbon felt film (CF) should be “carbon felt film ” .  CCF or CF

iii.               MSC and Q_s should be writing in full sentences.

iv.              Don’t repeat “In this paper.....”

v.                Rewrite the abstract.

 

22.     Introduction

 

i.                 Line, Mn ^4+[5] ?

 

 

33.     Experiment

 

i.                 For section 2.1 : Don’t used numbering in experiment.

ii.                For section 2.2 :  Don’t used active sentences in experiments.

      i.e :  Add …….

      Used only passive sentences.

iii.               For section 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6 :   Don’t used “In this paper….,”. Rewrite

iv.              “…scanning electron microscope (FEI) is   “.   (FEI) !!!

v.                In “Experiment”, ONLY METHOD can be write here.

 

 

44.     Results

 

i.                 Certain figure should insert error bar.

 

55.     Check carefully the using of abbreviation in text.

 

Author Response

We uploaded a separate file, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject covered in the article is original and very useful. These studies allow us to dig out new ways of energy extraction. The article is clearly written. The structure is good. The publication may be printed in its current form.

Author Response

We uploaded a separate file, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The authors show the performance of CF/Fe3O4 prepared by a simple onestep hydrothermal method when used in modified anode, and compares it with unmodified CF anode MFC. The EDS quantitative test showed that oxygen and iron accounted for the main mass, and the mass percentage was 65.87% and 266 34.13%, respectively, which was consistent with the fact that ferrosoferric oxide was the main active substance. The test results show that the maximum power density of the MFC modified anode with iron oxide is 5.09 W/m3, 4.42 times that of the blank carbon felt. They conclude that the Fe3O4 is cheap and the preparation method is simple, it is an efficient, economical and simple anode modification method to prepare Fe3O4 capacitive anode.

 

The description of the work is acceptable. Overall impression is that this manuscript can be recommended for publication after MAJOR revision in Coatings especially considering the scope and topics of this journal. However, I would like to point out to several details:

1. Underscore the scientific value added of your paper in your abstract. Please look at articles we have published for models. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That will help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article. This should be corrected.
2. It is not clear, i.e. you should emphasize what is novelty in your paper worth to publish? Correct this.
3. Captions for figures need to be more detailed and consist of some experimental conditions. Correct this.
4. Authors should give the error bars for the experiments for the figure 3, 4 and 5. Correct this.
5. In the conclusions, in addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. Correct this.
6. English language should be corrected by a professional lector. A proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

I hope that I helped in making this manuscript worth of publishing. I wish a lot of success to the authors in making this manuscript much better.

With kind regards!

Reviewer 

 

Dear Authors,

1. English language should be corrected by a professional lector. A proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

I hope that I helped in making this manuscript worth of publishing. 

With kind regards!

Reviewer 

 

 

Author Response

We uploaded a separate file, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper explores the use of a modified anode in microbial fuel cells to improve their power and energy storage capabilities. Specifically, the study investigates the performance of a carbon felt film/ferroferric tetroxide (CF/Fe₃O₄) electrode, prepared using a hydrothermal method, compared to a traditional CF anode. The results show that the CF/Fe₃O₄ electrode can achieve a maximum power density 4.43 times higher than the CF anode and releases 157.12 C/m² more stored energy in charge and discharge tests. To further advance this field, some potential research questions include:

1.      How does the performance of CF/Fe₃O₄ modified anodes change under different substrate types and concentrations?

2.      Can the performance of CF/Fe₃O₄ modified anodes be optimized by varying the concentration or synthesis conditions of the Fe₃O₄ coating?

3.      How does the performance of CF/Fe₃O₄ modified anodes compare to other types of modified anodes, such as those incorporating different types of metal oxides or conductive polymers?

4.      How does the performance of CF/Fe₃O₄ modified anodes change over long-term operation, and can the stability and durability be improved?

5.      How does the presence of other substances or environmental factors, such as organic pollutants or varying pH levels, affect the performance of CF/Fe₃O₄-modified anodes in microbial fuel cells?

 

 

 

NA

Author Response

We uploaded a separate file, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract  Fisrts two sentences should be release/omit (old version).

and don't revised that sentences.

No introduction in abstract.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Interesting results are well presented. The description of the work is acceptable. The length of the manuscript is appropriate. Discussion and conclusion is detailed. In my opinion this manuscript can be PUBLISH in Coatings especially considering the scope and topics of this journal. The authors correct all suggestions that reviewers gave about article.

 

I wish a lot of success to the authors.

Regards!

Reviewer

 

 

 

 

 

-