Transition from Electric Vehicles to Energy Storage: Review on Targeted Lithium-Ion Battery Diagnostics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Kindly define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text, including in the Abstracts, such as for SOH and ESS.

2. For consistency, please use “SOH” or “SoH” throughout the manuscript, but not both.

3. Line 116: isn’t it better to describe the battery degradation in terms of cycles?

4. Table 1:

a. Qualitative terms such as “high energy density” and “balanced energy density and power” mean little when comparing different types of battery chemistry. I’d suggest adding numerical data for the energy density (in Wh/kg).

b. I don’t think Chevrolet Spark and BYD e6 are classified as heavy-duty vehicles, although they (probably) use LFP type. Please provide different examples. Please also expand the examples-of-use column to include things other than EV.

5. Figure 2: I couldn’t understand the vertical axis. What probability is that? Why is the order of those numbers very low?

 

6. Lines 183-188 are redundant since they have been stated in lines 172-175.

7. Figure 3: where did the 60% and 85% numbers come from? Is it linked to Fig. 2?

8. Line 224 does not match with Fig. 3. Please revise.

9. Table 5: how did the authors obtain those numbers in the Probability and Impact columns? Are there any justifications/reports to support them? Lastly, it would have been better if each row (method) was supported by sufficient citations.

10. Line 426: percentage of what?

 

11. Lines 429-459 need to be rewritten. Please describe the necessary information without repeating what can be seen in Table 7.

12. Lines 510-511, please remove.

13. Lines 513: what software/validation methods are used in this manuscript?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lines 261 and 317: remove ‘the’;   use ‘Table’, not ‘Tab.’.

Author Response

We hope these revisions address the concerns raised by the reviewers and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. Thank you for the valuable feedback, and we look forward to your further consideration of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

One of the author Artur Zaporozhets being listed with too many affiliations in a manuscript, therefore required to clarify the relevance of each and ensure transparency in reporting affiliations to avoid any potential misrepresentation.

In the Life Cycle of Electric Vehicle Batteries section, discussing the life cycle with a limited scope is inappropriate because it overlooks key stages like raw material extraction, manufacturing, and end-of-life processes. These phases significantly impact the overall environmental footprint. A comprehensive life cycle assessment should cover the full cradle-to-grave scope to accurately reflect the battery’s total impact. Focusing only on the use phase, for example, presents an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the battery's sustainability. Therefore, the author should revise this section to explicitly address the limitations of the current scope.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language in the paper is generally clear but could benefit from minor edits. Some sentences are too complex, which affects readability. Simplifying phrases, improving sentence flow, and fixing minor grammatical issues will enhance clarity and coherence.

Author Response

 We hope these revisions address the concerns raised by the reviewers and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. Thank you for the valuable feedback, and we look forward to your further consideration of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, This paper examines advanced SOH diagnostic methods—direct, model-based, and data-driven—each with unique strengths and limitations.  Direct methods, such as capacity measurement and internal resistance testing, provide precise SoH assessments but are time-consuming and can disrupt operations.  Model-based diagnostics, utilizing mathematical simulations, offer real-time SOH and Rest of Useful Life predictions, making them suitable for electric vehicles and ESS applications. Data-driven approaches, leveraging machine learning and big data, are effective in predicting degradation patterns and providing adaptive management, particularly for fleet management and large-scale ESS.  Integrating these diagnostics into a circular economy framework enhances the sustainability of battery lifecycle management, improving resource efficiency and reducing environmental impact.  This study highlights the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic strategy for both primary and secondary applications, ultimately extending battery lifespan. Enhanced SOH diagnostics not only support battery longevity but also contribute to the broader adoption of sustainable energy practices, playing a key role in optimizing battery reuse and recycling. However, there are still some minor problems in this manuscript that should be resolved before it is considered for publication. For example:

1.     Improve the sharpness of the picture and make sure that every element of the picture can be seen clearly.

2.     Please adjust the table format to make sure it is all on one page at a time.

3.     Please adjust the format of the reference to ensure that it meets the journal requirements and remains uniform.

4.     Some important references should be cited.

Adv Mater.2023,35:2307003

Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2024, e202414650

Adv Mater. 2022;34:2201779

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

 

Author Response

 We hope these revisions address the concerns raised by the reviewers and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. Thank you for the valuable feedback, and we look forward to your further consideration of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 253-254 (or line 224 in the original submitted version) still don’t match Figure 3. For SOH below 60%, the figure shows that it can be used for small applications (with a scooter icon), but in the text, the authors stated that such a scooter is for 60% < SOH < 85%, while when SOH < 60%, it is recommended for dismantling and recycling. Please double-check the entire paragraph and see its consistency with Figs 2-3.

Author Response

Comments 1: Lines 253-254 (or line 224 in the original submitted version) still don’t match Figure 3. For SOH below 60%, the figure shows that it can be used for small applications (with a scooter icon), but in the text, the authors stated that such a scooter is for 60% < SOH < 85%, while when SOH < 60%, it is recommended for dismantling and recycling. Please double-check the entire paragraph and see its consistency with Figs 2-3.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency between the text and Figure 3 regarding the SOH ranges for secondary applications. We have carefully revised the relevant section to reflect the distinctions more accurately. Specifically, batteries with a SOH between 60% and 85% are recommended for various stationary energy storage systems, while those with a SOH below 60%, but greater than 40%, may be suitable for smaller-scale applications, such as electric scooters. Batteries that fall below 40% SOH are best suited for dismantling and recycling. We hope this revision resolves the concern and enhances the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper has addressed several key concerns from the previous review, significantly enhances its comprehensiveness. Additionally, the paper is well-organized, with clear summaries of diagnostic methods, and emphasizes practical applications within a circular economy framework. While it remains an incremental rather than groundbreaking contribution, these updates improve its impact on secondary energy storage. However, the relevance of 2nd authors' multiple affiliations is still unclear; further clarification of each role's specific contribution to this research is recommended to ensure full transparency.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the revised paper is mostly clear and easy to understand. There are a few small grammar mistakes and awkward phrases that could be smoothed out. Overall, the paper is well-written, but a final proofreading could help make it even clearer and more polished.

Author Response

Comments 1: The revised paper has addressed several key concerns from the previous review, significantly enhances its comprehensiveness. Additionally, the paper is well-organized, with clear summaries of diagnostic methods, and emphasizes practical applications within a circular economy framework. While it remains an incremental rather than groundbreaking contribution, these updates improve its impact on secondary energy storage. However, the relevance of 2nd authors' multiple affiliations is still unclear; further clarification of each role's specific contribution to this research is recommended to ensure full transparency.

Response 1: We appreciate your positive comments regarding the revisions and improvements in the comprehensiveness of the paper. Concerning the second author’s multiple affiliations, we have clarified their distinct roles in each organization, ensuring full transparency. These affiliations reflect collaborations across research institutions that have contributed to different aspects of the methodology and analysis. Additionally, after further consideration, we have decided to remove one more affiliation to streamline the author’s representation and more accurately reflect their primary contributions. We hope this clarification and adjustment adequately address your concern.

Comments 2: The English in the revised paper is mostly clear and easy to understand. There are a few small grammar mistakes and awkward phrases that could be smoothed out. Overall, the paper is well-written, but a final proofreading could help make it even clearer and more polished.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback on the clarity and readability of the revised manuscript. We have conducted another round of proofreading to correct minor grammatical issues and improve the fluency of the text. We believe the changes have further polished the manuscript, and we hope it now meets your expectations.