Three-Dimensional Carbon-Coated LiFePO₄ Cathode with Improved Li-Ion Battery Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors describe a method to add a coating of carbon to LFP particles via a simple water bath and sinter step. Overall the work is well presented and I only have a few points to address before it can be published. 

1. Figure 1 should be re-added to the manuscript
2. In relation to Figure 2, it is stated that the EDS demonstrates the particles are covered with a thin layer of carbon. EDS shows there is carbon  on the surface, but not  necessarily that it is a thin layer. 
3. Figure S2 should be incorporated to Figure 3, as the results there are integral to understanding all of the points made about Figure 3. Increasing thickness  with higher temp is only  demonstrated  with the material in S2 and therefore  it should be in the main text.  
4. 'it is obvious that the doped CTAB and sintering temperature must be suitable to increase the BET surface area and thus the capacity'. Nothing to this point justifies the statement about the capacity being higher.
5. The mechanism for the increase  in capacity is not well justified, only suggesting that covering increases surface active sites. There is not  really anything to back this statement up. In the intro the authors suggest increasing electrode conductivity could also be an effect. Their suggestion makes sense, but there is no data exactly that would prove it. I suggest rewording. 
6. Similarly, the authors suggest a flexible sintered nanofiber network, but based on no particular data. At least it requires a citation. 

A general style suggestion as well: Remove the word 'obvious' throughout the whole manuscript. It is repeated very frequently, and comes across poorly. On page 7 there is even a sentence that uses obviously three times in a row. As someone once told me - If everything in a manuscript is obvious, the work must not be very interesting!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. What is the reason for low coulombic efficiency (75%).
2. Authors have mentioned the coulombic efficiency only at 2C. Author should provide the coulombic efficiency at all C rate to better under understand its efficiency. 
3.  How did authors characterize 3D carbon? 
4. Author may refer the recent literature for 3D carbon and coulombic efficiency, Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2021, 2100076.     

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Look at my all comments provided in the attachment and address them carefully.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx