Comparative Analysis of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Urban Electric/Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Difference Between Hybrid and EV Batteries should be expounded. The functional testing of the two LESMS systems confirmed their suitability for operation in real-world conditions, where they showed equally good operational performance.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (batteries-2989959) and helpful comments to improve it.

 Reviewer 1

Comments to the Authors
The Difference Between Hybrid and EV Batteries should be expounded. The functional testing of the two LESMS systems confirmed their suitability for operation in real-world conditions, where they showed equally good operational performance.

 To Reviewer 1:

            Thank you very much for your review and valuable remarks.

 The Difference Between Hybrid and EV Batteries should be expounded.

- Thank you very much for your recommendation. A similar comment has been added in the introduction to the manuscript. 

2. The functional testing of the two LESMS systems confirmed their suitability for operation in real-world conditions, where they showed equally good operational performance.

- Thank you very much for your comment. 

 Thank you very much for your remarks and comments. They were very useful for me to emphasize the main tasks and contributions of the manuscript, and also to focus the readers attention on the new and unique elements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

98.  

This work compared two systems, NCA cells and LFP cells, in a test vehicle during real driving cycles. It provided a reference for battery deployment in low-coat urban EV/HEV. This manuscript can be accepted after addressing the following issues:

1. The title of the manuscript should be more specific. The current title is broad and vague.

2. The battery tests should include the cycling test. 

3. The figure 3a is important for this work; the author should make it prominent and clear.

4. In figure6, the Y-axis has two parameters. if there are two parameters, please use dual Y-axes.

5. Please find "week" change it to "weak"

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (batteries-2989959) and helpful comments to improve it.

 

Reviewer 2

Comments to the Authors

This work compared two systems, NCA cells and LFP cells, in a test vehicle during real driving cycles. It provided a reference for battery deployment in low-coat urban EV/HEV. This manuscript can be accepted after addressing the following issues:

1. The title of the manuscript should be more specific. The current title is broad and vague.
2. The battery tests should include the cycling test.
3. The figure 3a is important for this work; the author should make it prominent and clear.
4. In figure6, the Y-axis has two parameters. if there are two parameters, please use dual Y-axes.
5. Please find "week" change it to "weak".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

 

To Reviewer 2:

          

Thank you for your review and valuable remarks.

 

1. The title of the manuscript should be more specific. The current title is broad and vague.

- Thank you very much for your recommendation. The title has been corrected.

2. The battery tests should include the cycling test.

- Thank you very much for your comment. Similar tests are considered and their results are given in Figure 7.

3. The figure 3a is important for this work; the author should make it prominent and clear.

- Thank you very much. Necessary corrections have been made.

4. In figure6, the Y-axis has two parameters. if there are two parameters, please use dual Y-axes.

- Thank you very much. Necessary corrections have been made.

5. The figure 3a is important for this work; the author should make it prominent and clear.

- Thank you very much. Necessary corrections have been made.

Minor editing of English language required.

- Thank you very much. Necessary corrections have been made. I have inadvertently uploaded a version of the manuscript before stylistic correction.

  

Thank you very much for your remarks and comments. They were very useful for me to emphasize the main tasks and contributions of the manuscript, and also to focus the readers attention on the new and unique elements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-structured and addresses a highly relevant topic in the field of battery technology for electric and hybrid electric vehicles. The comparative analysis of NCA and LFP lithium-ion cells provides valuable insights into their performance characteristics, which are critical for urban transportation applications. Given the scarcity of studies of this nature in the academic field, this reviewer recommends acceptance of the manuscript contingent upon the completion of necessary corrections to the English language if needed.

-The abstract is informative; however, it could benefit from a sentence highlighting the main conclusion or recommendation of the study to provide immediate value to the reader.  

-The introduction might be strengthened by adding a brief discussion of recent advancements in battery technology including LESMS to situate the study within current research trends. Recent trend was mentioned already in some parts, but a more detailed discussion would help potential readers.

-The description of the battery systems and the experimental setup is comprehensive. Consider including more detailed schematics or diagrams of the test setups to enhance reader understanding.

-The results are well-presented and discussed. However, the section could be improved by more clearly delineating the implications of these findings for future technology developments in EV/HEV battery systems.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper (batteries-2989959) and helpful comments to improve it.

 

Reviewer 3

Comments to the Authors

The manuscript is well-structured and addresses a highly relevant topic in the field of battery technology for electric and hybrid electric vehicles. The comparative analysis of NCA and LFP lithium-ion cells provides valuable insights into their performance characteristics, which are critical for urban transportation applications. Given the scarcity of studies of this nature in the academic field, this reviewer recommends acceptance of the manuscript contingent upon the completion of necessary corrections to the English language if needed.

-The abstract is informative; however, it could benefit from a sentence highlighting the main conclusion or recommendation of the study to provide immediate value to the reader. 

-The introduction might be strengthened by adding a brief discussion of recent advancements in battery technology including LESMS to situate the study within current research trends. Recent trend was mentioned already in some parts, but a more detailed discussion would help potential readers.

-The description of the battery systems and the experimental setup is comprehensive. Consider including more detailed schematics or diagrams of the test setups to enhance reader understanding.

-The results are well-presented and discussed. However, the section could be improved by more clearly delineating the implications of these findings for future technology developments in EV/HEV battery systems.

 

To Reviewer 3:

            Thank you for your review and valuable remarks.

 

1. The abstract is informative; however, it could benefit from a sentence highlighting the main conclusion or recommendation of the study to provide immediate value to the reader.

- Thank you very much for the recommendation and suggestion. The necessary correction has been made.

2. The introduction might be strengthened by adding a brief discussion of recent advancements in battery technology including LESMS to situate the study within current research trends. Recent trend was mentioned already in some parts, but a more detailed discussion would help potential readers.

- Thank you very much for the recommendation. The necessary correction has been made.

3. The description of the battery systems and the experimental setup is comprehensive. Consider including more detailed schematics or diagrams of the test setups to enhance reader understanding.

- Thank you very much for the remark. A description of the experimental set-up and a new fig.2 have been added.

4. The results are well-presented and discussed. However, the section could be improved by more clearly delineating the implications of these findings for future technology developments in EV/HEV battery systems.

- Thank you very much for the recommendation. The necessary correction has been made.

 

Thank you very much for your remarks and comments. They were very useful for me to emphasize the main tasks and contributions of the manuscript, and also to focus the readers attention on the new and unique elements.

 Again thank you all for the exact review