Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy for Electrochemical Energy Conversion and Storage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A good paper for readers. The techniques are well-explained, and have much interest to readers. The feedback effects are well elaborated with figures.

Introduction

It is well written with adequate references to support the claims.  

State of the Art

It has details about the microelectrode and the electrochemical responses which is further depicted by the figures. Feedback mode is very well explained along with the general mode of SECM. Different types of potential vs time graphs are included to show the variations in the experiments. Trends and developments shows the research gap and applications of the study.    

Since SECM and SPM are very good techniques for localized electrochemical testing, the paper has its utmost value to readers as the content on this topic is very less. So, the paper is worth publishing.

Author Response

The author is grateful for the positive feedback on the submitted work.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author provided a detailed introduction to the scanning electrochemical microscope and conducted in-depth research on its applications in the field of electrochemical energy storage and conversion. The manuscript is well-structured and the ideas are rigorous. With some minor revisions, it can be considered for publication.

1. The introduction section should reference more relevant literature.

2. The conclusion and outlook section should present their own conclusions and viewpoints without citing references.

3. The abbreviation SECM in the keywords should be written in full. Additionally, the reviewers suggest that the authors limit the number of keywords to five or fewer.

4. "Nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC)" should be changed to "Lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide (NMC)." Please refer to the following literature: ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 14(9) (2022) 11359-11374.

5. The abstract content should be more specific."

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The author ist thankful to the reviewers comments and remarks. A point-by-point response is given for the respective aspects in the following:

Q1: The introduction section should reference more relevant literature.

A1: The introductive part only reflects selected milestones and very general aspects of the technique, which can be found in hundreds of papers, book chapters or review articles. As this is all more or less textbook knowledge, the author does not tend to inflate the bibliography. Therefore, no further work has been added.

Q2: The conclusion and outlook section should present their own conclusions and viewpoints without citing references.

A2: The conclusion and outlook section presents the authors own conclusions/viewpoints and individual aspects are also supported by very recent publications in the field.

Q3: The abbreviation SECM in the keywords should be written in full. Additionally, the reviewers suggest that the authors limit the number of keywords to five or fewer.

A3: The author changed the abbreviation to the full name. The template allows 3-10 keywords.

Q4: "Nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC)" should be changed to "Lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide (NMC)." Please refer to the following literature: ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 14(9) (2022) 11359-11374.

A4: The author corrected this mistake; however, an additional reference is not necessary here, because the right term is also given in the already mentioned reference.

Q5: The abstract content should be more specific.

A5: The entry does not contain an abstract, but only a definition, which “should focus on the most essential points of information about the topic being described”. The author believes that this is the case by the present definition.

Reviewer 3 Report

I found the manuscript exciting and well-organized. The manuscript established valuable points with appropriate citations and offered future research directions. One point needing attention exists in Section 3 (Trends and Development). I recommend the author add a new subtitle, Processes in Supercapacitors after Lithium Ion Batteries (LIB), and discuss it carefully.

Author Response

The author is very grateful to the reviewer for pointing out that supercapacitors are, of course, also among the prominent electrochemical storage technologies and need to be discussed in the paper. A corresponding paragraph has been added to the paper (end of Section 3). Unfortunately, only a limited number of work is available in this exciting field.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript may be published in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form.