Modeling the Performance Degradation of a High-Temperature PEM Fuel Cell
, Na Li 1, Simon Lennart Sahlin 1, Giovanni Cinti 2 and Samuel Simon Araya 1,*
David Blekhman
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a consistent summary of literature review as related to the declared topic. Well done. While overall paper body just had a couple of typos, it would be recommended to thoroughly revise the abstract in lines 1-2 and 6-7 both accuracy and meaning.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive comments. We have thoroughly revised the typos and grammar errors in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The current study explored Degradation Modeling of a High Temperature Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Based on Literature Survey. Below are some reviewers recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. The authors should please check the word breakthrough in line 1 and 2 in the abstract.
2. Introduction - First paragraph should be referenced (Line 23 -30).
3. Grammatical error in line 46 - 47. It should be corrected.
4. Similarly line 68 - 71 is equally inaccurate grammatically.
5. Line 80 - Please avoid lump referencing. Be clear on the exact contribution of each reference and how it ties to the quality of the present study please.
6. Authors are encourage to justify the basis for their assumptions through referencing as some of the parameters stated as being negligible is likely to skew the outcome of the results gathered.
7. Line 145 - Authors are encouraged to please avoid lump referencing.
8. Equations must be properly referenced in the manuscript.
9. The authors are encourage to justify how they validated the various models used in the present study as some of the results presented are too perfect and does not represent a true reflection of the study in real life.
10. A thorough proof reading is required as there are lots of grammatical errors and typos throughout the entire manuscript.
11. Due to the high number of variables used in the study, authors are encouraged to include a nomenclature.
12. Authors must provide a basis for the choice of referenced used for the study from table 1. Some of the references goes as far back to 2008 and 2009 hence authors are encouraged to considered recent novel works published at least in the last 5 years other than focusing on information published over a decade ago.
13. Some of the hypothesis presented in the studies are common knowledge from theoretical principles especially the effect of temperature on agglomeration from Fig. 2. Authors are encouraged to be very clear on the exact novelty of the study but not a repetition of existing facts, theoretical concepts and knowledge from literature.
14. The basis for the comparison should be justified from a technical point of view. Some of the studies presented in Fig. 3 was done under completely different operating conditions hence its difficult to use some studies as fit for purpose for the present studies without any clear basis for it. In summary the authors are encourage to marry apples fro apples.
15. Section 3.1.1. line 370 - 373 - The sentence is not clear hence authors are encouraged to review the section.
16. All abbreviations should be properly defined in the first instance example line 384.
17. Fig. 6 shows some significant deviation. Can the authors provide a reason for this please.?
18. In terms of the life prognosis line 401 - 407, the justification provided is how a fuel cell is meant to operate in an ideal scenario but it is difficult to strike out the novelty of the study other than a repetition of an existing information/theory but using a different approach. The approach used is novel but the concept presented is public knowledge hence the authors should be more clear and definite on the technical contribution of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors are answered all reviewer comments thoroughly hence the manuscript can be accepted.
