Potentiostatic Dealloying Fabrication and Electrochemical Actuation Performance of Bulk Nanoporous Palladium

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present the synthesis of a nanoporous Pd material for use as an electrochemical actuator. The material is very thoroughly characterised and the performance of the material is evidenced in great detail with comparison to the performance of previous literature.

Overall I think this manuscript is of a good quality but I have one major concern that is preventing me from recommending its publication in Metals.

The authors don't at all make clear what specifically is novel about what they have done compared to previous literature. If they can do that effectively then this paper would be very worthy of publication.

Additionally the authors should address the minor points below when revising.

1) Please provide specific details on how the electrochemical actuation measurements were performed rather than just referring to previous literature.

2) Confirm in the manuscript what the sample size was for the ligament size analysis done.

3) Shouldn't time be lower case t not upper case T?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

In this work, the authors studied the fabrication of nanoporous Pd by potentiostatic dealloying and its electrochemical actuation performance. The paper is interesting and novel. The materials have been adequately researched. The article is publishable subject to revision.

1.The image of the cell used for electrochemical actuation measurements should be provided in the paper.

2.In the Introduction, the authors speak about the effect of the electrolyte on the dealloying potential; however, references are not provided. Some references should be provided to support this statement, e.g., https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b919313h, https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/JMMB170425015P.

3.The lines of the manuscript should be numbered to facilitate orientation.

4.Figures and tables should be inserted in the paper and presented at their first mention in the manuscript. They shouldn’t be collected at the end of the manuscript. Additionally, supplementary figures and tables are also important since they provide useful information about the microstructure and chemical composition of materials (SEM/EDS data). They should be inserted into the manuscript itself. It will be easier for readers to follow the text if these figures are presented directly in the paper.

5.The potentiodynamic curves (Fig. 1b) should be analyzed by Tafel extrapolation. The corrosion currents and corrosion potentials of the materials should be compared.

6.Powder diffraction file number of Pd should be provided in Fig. 2a (XRD data).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you to the authors for addressing all of my concerns. I now recommend this manuscript for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors answered my comments. The paper can be accepted for publication.