Transforming Chimney Soot via Stochastic Polymerization for Active Electrode Coating

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is a detailed investigation on the transformation and characterization of chimney soot by stochastic polymerization for active electrode coatings. This particular topic is really current and the area can be of great industrial interest. The paper itself is relatively well drafted and understandable. The Figures and illustrations are all clear and they support the text in manuscript. The characterizations and measurements, such as Raman spectroscopy, FT-IR, XPS and also the electrochemical tests as potential supercapacitors are well described and satisfactorily evaluated.

My minor concerns and comments regarding this paper as follows:

- In the Introduction, the Authors should highlight the novelty of their work and stress the differences from similar research works in this area even more.

-The Section 2. Experimental and Section 3 Methods of investigation should be united in one Section as Materials and Methods, divided into sub-sections accordingly.

In my personal opinion, some additional morphological characterizations on the pristine soot and the treated soot as well as their comparison, such as particle size, form, distribution and so on, would increase the quality of the paper even more.

 

The quality of the English style is acceptable, only some minor corrections and general check are needed.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the present report, the pristine soot was subject to chlorination, with half of it treated with magnesium (Mg-plates) to create random-type Grignard reagents (R-Mg-Cl) in diethyl ether media. Furthermore, mixing the Grignard reagents and the rest of the halogenated soot material provided the creation of new C-C bonds, thus increasing the molecular weight of the final product. This paper provided some valuable information and the content is very significant in this field. However, I recommended a major revision of the article from its present form before it can be published in coatings. Some specific comments are as follows:

1.         The abstract and conclusion sections should be a specific and scientific approach.

2.         In the introduction section, the authors should expound the research significance of the present work.

3.         The authors should explain the novelty of the present report?

4.         The manuscript completely missing morphology analysis.

5.         There are many typo mistakes in the text, figure captions and some abbreviations are missing. Please revise carefully.

6.         The authors should discuss the effect of morphology and surface area on performance.

7.         All images are very poor resolution. Authors should produce high quality images.

8.         What are the key factors affecting the efficiency?

9.         The electrochemical analysis is incomplete. The authors should perform CVs at different scan rates.

10.       EIS and GCD analysis is completely missing.

11.       In the current state, there are more typographical errors and the language should be improved. Therefore, the authors are advised to recheck the whole manuscript for improving the language and structure carefully.

In the current state, there are more typographical errors and the language should be improved. Therefore, the authors are advised to recheck the whole manuscript for improving the language and structure carefully.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be acceptable in the present form.