‘In-Situ’ Preparation of Carbonaceous Conductive Composite Materials Based on PEDOT and Biowaste for Flexible Pseudocapacitor Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a throughout study on novel materials and process for flexible conductive composites. The methods are properly described and appropriate. The results conclusive and of interest for the research field on flexible materials for electrical applications.  

Author Response

We would like to express our great appreciation to you for the comments on our paper. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper ‘In-situ' preparation of carbonaceous conductive composite materials based on PEDOT and biowaste for flexible pseudocapacitor application’ Gonzales F. and co-authors present a method to produce high surface area electrodes for supercapacitor applications.

The topic is interesting, but I found the paper quite confusing and difficult to read so I would like the authors to address my concerns/points.

• The introduction does not provide sufficient information to the reader and it should be re-written.

The authors state:

‘Energy demand has drastically increased the need for the development of new energy storage devices with low cost and preferably using sustainable materials, as the employment of fossil fuels is not convenient due to its emissions. On the other hand, the use of renewable energies, such as solar and wind sources present the inconvenient of its intermittent nature. Due to this, there is a great interest on developing materials for energy storage devices using efficient and less polluting methods [1,2].’

which is not clear and misleading; I agree that solar and wind sources are intermittent, but the goal of an energy storage device should aim to their accumulation when their availability is high and on-demand release when necessary.

This concept is not clear or maybe I did not understand correctly what the authors want to claim.

Furthermore, the sentence:

‘From the point of view of electrode design, diverse strategies can been found in the literature that increase the performance of energy storage devices.’

is lacking a proper reference (please also note the typo).

In general, this introduction does not inform the reader about the state of the art of this technology and about the goal of this work so in my opinion it should be carefully revised.

• In my understanding, the work cited at line 52 should serve as comparison with your results but I am missing an accurate description of the two systems and all values present different units making the reading very confusing.
• Can you compare your capacitance value with the state of the art?
• Sample names, like PTOSAC32PM, etc..., are not explained, so it is quite difficult keep up with different composites and preparations. My suggestion is to explain the choice of these acronyms.
• In line 273, a stable value of ionic conductivity after 8 days is justified by the evaporation of residual water. Can you please comment how humidity affects the electrolyte behavior of PVA?
• The electrochemical characterization of the electrolyte/electrode system is not considering sample to sample variations so I would expect more data to support the superior performance of PTOSKAC15. Again, this last part lacks any relation or comparison with current state of the art on supercapacitors, so the reader is not able to judge the quality of your system.

Best Regards,

Author Response

The authors would like first to thank the reviewers for their attention to the paper and valuable suggestions to improve its quality.

In the following, replies to reviewer comments are given in details.

Text in black corresponds to reviewers´ comments, while text in red corresponds to the authors’ answers.

Text in italics corresponds to the part added or modified compared to the first version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that the manuscript “In-situ' preparation of carbonaceous conductive composite materials based on PEDOT and biowaste for flexible pseudocapacitor application” is well written and is worth publishing in the Journal of Composites Science. Before accepting the manuscript I would like you to reply to my comments:

1. The parameters of ultrasonic stirring are not provided (118).
2. The authors provide the results of TGA curves within the range from 25 °C to 800 °C, not 700 °C (142).
3. There is no information as to the preparation of the sample for the specific surface area analysis.
4. There is no information as to how the average pore size was determined.
5. Please explain the difference between the parameters “Filler/EDOT weight ratio” and “Particle content (wt.%)” in Table 1.
6. What is the physical sense of providing the specific surface area value to the first decimal place in Table 2 given that the values are 900 and 2170 m2/g? Is the value ±0.3 provided in Table 2 the standard deviation of the specific surface area measurement? If yes, please write to what this value refers.
7. I suggest summarising the TGA results e.g. for 800° C in a table.
8. What thickness of PEDOT-AC layers were obtained on the gel polymer electrolyte samples?. Was the layer thickness repeatable?.

Author Response

The authors would like first to thank the reviewers for their attention to the paper and valuable suggestions to improve its quality.

In the following, replies to reviewer comments are given in details.

Text in black corresponds to reviewers´ comments, while text in red corresponds to the authors’ answers.

Text in italics corresponds to the part added or modified compared to the first version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for answering my questions.

My last recommendation is just related to the use of starch as source for composite preparation. In general, the re-use of bio-waste is of outmost importance for the future development of our society and it should state more clear in your papers. 

 

Best Regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

The answers from authors and the revised manuscript is acceptable at present form.