Oxygen Evolution Reaction of Co-Mn-O Electrocatalyst Prepared by Solution Combustion Synthesis
, Jae Eun Jeon 1, Ghulam Ali 2, Yong-Ho Ko 3, Jaewoong Lee 3, HyukSu Han 4,* and Sungwook Mhin 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors report the OER activity of Co-Mn-O catalysts synthesized by solution combustion method. The effect of Co content on crystalline structure and OER activity were investigated and discussed. They found that higher Co3+ content can improve the OER activity in terms of lower over potential, faster charge transfer, and better stability. I recommend this manuscript to be accepted for publication in Catalysts after the following concerns are addressed:
1. The additional SEM and TEM measurements are required to confirm the morphology and particle size of Co-Mn-O catalysts.
2. From TEM-EDS images, it is unclear to state that “average particle size of all samples was approximately 400 nm”. Moreover, size of Figure 1 should be larger.
3. Surface area is one of the important factors that determine the OER performance of Co oxide materials (ACS Catal. 2018, 8, 1913-1920; J. Mater. Chem A 6, 2018, 5678-5686; Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 25527-25536). I suggest the authors measure the specific surface area and pore structure of the samples and also consider these properties into discussion.
4. The authors should show the CV curves of all samples in the electrochemical results.
5. The authors conclude that high amount of Co3+ play the vital role in increasing OER activity. To gain more information, I suggest the author perform the XPS measurement to confirm the amount of Co3+ existing in the sample.
6. It seems that the OER activity is related to only amount of Co3+. What is the role of Mn in the catalyst? Is there any effect of oxygen vacancies?
7. Please give the discussion on why the current density of Co = 2.7 increased for 40% at initial stage of measurement? Why the increase of current density was not observed for Co = 1.2 and Co = 2.4?
8. I think the authors should show the OER activity of pure Co3O4 and Mn3O4 for comparison with Co-Mn-O catalysts.
9. There are some typos in the manuscript, especially subscript and superscript. Please carefully read and check the English before submission.
10. Size and resolution of Figures should be improved.
Author Response
To
Editor
Catalysts
The authors want to thank both you and reviewers for their review and fruitful comments; after revisions, our manuscript has improved significantly and thus we are confident it is ready for publication. Below we have provided detailed individual responses to each of the reviewers’ concerns and the changes to the manuscript are in red.
We look forward to a positive review of this revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
Sungwook Mhin (for all the authors)
Korea Institute of Industrial Technology
113-58, Seohaean-ro, Siheung-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15014
Republic of Korea
Office: +82 (031) 8084 8641
Fax: +82 (031) 8084 8603
E-mail: hyeleci@kitech.re.kr
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by Kyoung Ryeol Park at al. deals with the evaluation of the oxygen evolution reaction of a Co-Mn-O electrocatalyst which was prepared via a solution combustion synthetic approach.
The topic of the study is worthy of investigation and adequate for the aim and scope of a journal such as Catalysts. It is an opinion of this reviewer that the manuscript should be revised before being considered for publication. In details, the main comments are reported below as per article sub-sections:
Abstract: In its present form it is too similar to an introduction section. Authors should re-write the section by reducing the background and improve the experimental results.
Introduction: the importance of the study in the specific research field should be better presented. Authors should elucidate which advantages derived from their methodology and better focus the intended contribution to the specific research field
Results and Discussion: Authors are encouraged to improve the comparison of their results with those available in the literature, to strength the importance of their work.
Author Response
To
Editor
Catalysts
The authors want to thank both you and reviewers for their review and fruitful comments; after revisions, our manuscript has improved significantly and thus we are confident it is ready for publication. Below we have provided detailed individual responses to each of the reviewers’ concerns and the changes to the manuscript are in red.
We look forward to a positive review of this revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
Sungwook Mhin (for all the authors)
Korea Institute of Industrial Technology
113-58, Seohaean-ro, Siheung-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15014
Republic of Korea
Office: +82 (031) 8084 8641
Fax: +82 (031) 8084 8603
E-mail: hyeleci@kitech.re.kr
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed adequately all of the comments that have been raised by the reviewers.
Therefore, it can be accepted for publication in Catalysts.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript was modified according to the reviewer’ suggestions and the answers to the criticisms are generally satisfactory. It is an opinion of this reviewer that the work is now suitable for publication.
