From Waste Biomass to Hard Carbon Anodes: Predicting the Relationship between Biomass Processing Parameters and Performance of Hard Carbons in Sodium-Ion Batteries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To the author

I suggest that this manuscript will be a really good review paper, however, the manuscript was written a little bit hurriedly. Despite the authors considered the hard carbon obtained from biomass for the sodium-ion battery, the additional points should be considered to make it clear the authors’ claims:

1. The manuscript is not well written and could be polished for the English language. The authors should check their manuscript from native English speakers and/or should improve the language.

2. Abstract, Introduction, and other sections are confusing, redundant, and lack scientific depth, not enough figures from the references. Please rewrite it.

3. The manuscript has a lot of errors related to the design of the manuscript. The authors should check the text of the manuscript and references. Please check the guidelines for authors.

4. Some figures in this review are not readable to readers. Therefore, I could recommend adding the figures from references and/or redrawing of some figures.

5. Please make and provide (new manuscripts which were submitted for the last several years) the table with the electrochemical performance of the hard carbon and other anode materials in the aqueous and non-aqueous electrolytes.

6. The manuscript lacks significant novelty related to the hard carbon for sodium-ion batteries, therefore, please work more on this topic compared to the anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.

7. Some figures don’t have a connection with each other, please carefully reconsider the references.

8. In the Introduction section needs significant polishing. The reason for the sudden jump from anode material to Hard Carbon is unclear. How does it connect to the material used in the present work? Further, it would be appreciated if the authors could present and describe the meaning of the research work. Please indicate and describe the reasons use of authors:

-           Indicate the main reasons why hard carbon is most promising compared to the other anode materials?

-           Please add several sentences about the cathodes, and why the sodium ion battery is attractive compared to the lithium-ion, solid state, aqueous, and other types.

-           Table 1, please add more information about two elements.

-           Please check the abbreviatures

-           Please explain why you choose hard carbon compared to graphite if this material is quite cheap.

9. Please add the structure of HC compared to the other anode materials, for example, graphite.

10. More concrete about the geographical conditions and price for 1 kg of biomass for receiving the hard carbon, for example.

11. Add a schematic illustration of reactions and transformation, and how to receive the HC from the biomass precursor.

12. Please make a comparison of the anode materials regarding the electrochemical performance from the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Hard carbon has attracted great attention for energy storage owing to low cost and extremely high micro-porosity. In this review, the authors discuss the proposed mechanism of sodium-ion storage in hard carbon and compare various hard carbon precursor’s source as well as processing methods and conditions of the hard carbon production, reveal the role of carbonization temperature on the carbon structure and correlate the carbon structure with electrochemical performance. The review is technically well-organized, well-written, and clear. Overall, I would recommend a major revision for the current manuscript for now. There are several comments and suggestions as follows:

1.     It is better to replace “SIBs” with “Sodium-ion batteries” in the keywords.

2.     The authors state that “there exists a certain temperature range (roughly between 1200 to 1400°C) in which optimum capacity (> 300mAh/g) and initial coulombic efficiency (ICE) (>80%) can be achieved”. However, hard carbon can be obtained at relatively low temperature by in situ iron-catalyzed graphitization process (Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2020, 294: 109884; Energy Technology, 2022, 10(4): 2101103, ACS Energy Letters, 2017, 2(3): 659-663). These highly related references should be included

3.     Pre-lithiation is an effective strategy to improve ICE and cycling stability of lithium-ion battery (Materials Futures, 2021, 1(1): 015101; Nature Energy, 2022, 7(2): 186-193; Advanced Energy Materials, 2022: 2202447.). Likewise, pre-sodiation should be included and discussed.

4.     Please double check the units in table 2, which should be superscripted.

5.     There is a missing of reference in line 125, page 5.

6.     The authors need to unify the format like in Fig. 5. Specifically, Fig. 5g, h are different from the rest of the figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you so much for your answers to my comments, however, I have still several comments for improvement of your publications:

1. Figures 4, 5, and 6 are quite difficult to understand these figures due to messy data if it is possible to build other figures or copy other figures from these references, for example. Please consider this point.

2. Please consider the publications related to the hard carbon used in sodium ion battery, I can suggest that if you add some figures from these articles or combine figures and add a little bit of explanations, it would be very nice for your review paper.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for the comments on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your valuable suggestion. The revision includes a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments individually. We greatly value your input and believe it will greatly enhance the quality and accuracy of our work.

We are looking forwards to your further decisions.

Best Regards,

Tong Han and co-authors

A detailed response to the reviewers' comments

 

Reviewer #1: Thank you so much for your answers to my comments, however, I have still several comments for improvement of your publications:

1. Figures 4, 5, and 6 are quite difficult to understand these figures due to messy data if it is possible to build other figures or copy other figures from these references, for example. Please consider this point.

Response:

Thank you for your comment regarding the figures in our manuscript. We have taken your feedback into consideration and have streamlined the data in Figures 4, 5, and 6 by selecting representative sets of data from the literature. Additionally, we have provided more explanations in the text to improve the clarity and understanding of the figures. We hope these changes will make the figures easier to understand and provide a clearer representation of the data.

2. Please consider the publications related to the hard carbon used in sodium ion battery, I can suggest that if you add some figures from these articles or combine figures and add a little bit of explanations, it would be very nice for your review paper.

Response:

We have taken your feedback into consideration and have combined Figures 5 and 6 with the figure in relevant articles to provide a more comprehensive representation of the data. We have also used a consistent format to explain all of the data, making it easier for readers to understand and follow.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Thank you for the previous comments on our manuscript.

Best Regards,

Tong Han and co-authors