Biomass Derived High Porous Carbon via CO2 Activation for Supercapacitor Electrodes
, Bayan Kaidar 1, Zulkhair Mansurov 1,2, Jimena Castro-Gutierrez 7, Alain Celzard 7, Vanessa Fierro 7 and Tolganay Atamanova 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, the authors have done a great job in developing and validating an efficient method for the preparation and electrochemical properties of activated carbon from two types of biomass, with the aim of obtaining highly efficient electrode materials for supercapacitors. Although the proposed methods are not new, the idea of developing high performance electrodes for supercapacitors with lower environmental impact is noteworthy. The experiments seem to have been well performed, as shown by the comprehensive and understandable results, while good scientific explanations are also written to describe all the data. The paper is interesting, original, and contains a wealth of very clearly presented results. The title and abstract actually reflect what is covered in the paper.
I suggest that this manuscript can be accepted after solving the following problems:
In the chapter Introduction:
line 68: The author mentions the abbreviation SSA for the first time, so you should explain what it means, write the whole word and the abbreviation in brackets
In the chapter Materials and Methods:
line 121: “…a linear heating rate of K min-1 …” a numerical value is missing
In the chapter Results:
Figure 4. mark a) and b) in the picture
line 231: Fe3O4, write correctly.
Figure 6. it is neither stated which curve is valid for scan rate at 10 mV s-1 and which for scan rate at 100 mV s-1, nor is it explained why the area under the curve is larger for one scan rate than for the other one
line 272: did you mean picture 6a instead of written 6c, considering the further explanation?
The chapter “References” are not written according to the instructions for authors of the journal
Language and phrasing is clear and unambiguous to avoid confusion.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents interesting data on the Biomass Derived High Porous Carbon via CO2 Activation for Supercapacitor Electrodes. The manuscript is well-written with the required data. Still, a few minor corrections are needed to modify it before it is accepted for publication.
1. Authors should discuss stability test.
2. Authors should include the formula used for the capacitance calculation in the main manuscript.
3. The authors should include the equivalent circuit diagram in the eis spectrum.
4. Authors should include comparison table for the performance of current work with previous report.
5. Authors should include ragone plot in the main manuscript.
NA
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have accepted all the suggested suggestions, therefore I believe that the paper can be accepted in this form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved the manuscript in an acceptable manner. Now this revised version can be published in this journal.
