The LiTFSI/COFs Fiber as Separator Coating with Bifunction of Inhibition of Lithium Dendrite and Shuttle Effect for Li-SeS₂ Battery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is quite profound and may be of interest to coatings journal. However, the authors should take into account the following considerations in order to increase the quality of the manuscript:

1. The abstract should focus more closely on the results of the work.
2. The authors should state in the introduction how unique their work is in comparison to other works in the field. The novelty of the current study needs to be more clarified by adding more relevant and similar recent studies to the introduction section.
3. Provide full name before the first abbreviation. Such as XRD, SEM, and BET. Check this throughout the manuscript.
4. This experimental part, requires some more detailed description, due to preparation conditions are not clear.
5. The author should include the “Materials selection”
6. The author should include the “Characterization / Instruments techniques”
7. The author should calculate the average crystalline size/grain size from XRD and SEM analysis
8. The XRD, BET, and SEM discussion part needs some more detailed discussion with published paper citations.
9. The authors should give a comparison of the results and discussion part. The result and discussion part need some more detailed discussion with published paper citation.
10. The authors also do not explain the difference between this work and other reported results.
11. Compare your Electrochemical results with the literature, and add at least a table to compare your results with the literature.
12. The conclusion is short and should be expanded.
13. The final novel achievement(s) should be mentioned in the “Conclusion” section. Mentioning the equipment name and/or technique(s) is not needed. The authors should explain which exact problem could be solved by the present research. In summary, social implication shall be included in the conclusion
14. The recent references should be cited in the text
15. In the overall manuscript spell check, spacing, and typing errors are to be checked.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with a fibrous separator coating layer containing rich carbonyl and amino functional groups used in Li-SeS2 battery in view of inhibiting lithium dendrites and shuttle effect.

I consider that this work could be worthy to be published in Coating after addressing the following issues.

1. (title and keywords) it should be 2
2. (abstract) please define acronyms
3. Overall: it should be a space between value number and unit.
4. Line 18: it should be “at 5 and 10 mA cm^-2”. Delete dot between units and do not repeat unit when a series of values
5. Please remove the capacity values in decimal places. Decimal values are very difficult to reproduce.
6. Figure captions are not satisfactory. Figures are stand-alone sections. Therefore, they should provide all the required information in the captions such that the reader is not required to refer to the main text.
7. Line 96: please clarify “0.2 mL 6 mol/L”
8. Line 119: it should be 2
9. Line 130: please define DOL and DME acronyms
10. Line 136: do not repeat unit when a series of values.
11. Line 147: provide reference.
12. (experimental and methods) description of XRD, SEM and BET apparatus is missing.
13. 2: please provide wavelength of the X-ray-source
14. Line 157: can you estimate the specific surface area of LITFSI /ATFG-COF?
15. 4, bottom: I’m enable to judge the Figures S1-S4 because the SI file is not provided.
16. Line 187: provide the formula (with reference) from which the Li transport number was estimated
17. Line 193: delete “on the other hand”
18. The decrease of the transport number from 0.80 to 0.71 should be discussed more deeply. These values should be compared with those given in literature.
19. 6: there are to many “In order to verify that”. Please rewrite.
20. Line 223: deleted dots in “1 mA.cm-2, 1 mAh.cm-2”
21. Line 226: replace 1000 hours by 1000 h
22. Line 230-231: make a space between number and unit
23. Line 232: decimal is useless for the current density
24. Line 240: replace “at 5 mA.cm-2, 10 mA.cm-2” for “at 5 and 10 mA.cm-2”
25. 7, bottom: it should be “2000 h”; “3 h”; “12 h” (insert space)
26. 9: insert space before “V”
27. Line 281: it should be “1.7-2.1 V”
28. Lines 286-287: it is unclear, please rewrite this sentence
29. Results obtained from the Randle-Sevcik equation are missing
30. Lines 309-310 and 319: do not repeat mAh/g
31. The conclusion is rather maigre. Please rewrite.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have proposed an interesting method for LiTFSI/COFs fiber as separator coating, which would possess promising application in lithium metal full batteries. The systematic experiments and corresponding logical analysis have been conducted. I highly recommend the publication of this manuscript after addressing the following minor concerns.

1. Many Figures have borders, can the authors remove them?

2. Why there is a shift in XRD patterns of ATFG-COF and LiTFSI/ATFG-COF?

3. Could you recheck the EIS plot to make sure that X and Y axes are consistent with each other?
4. Some highly relevant literatures such as ACS Nano 2021, 15, 18931–18973; Coatings 11.2 (2021): 138; ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 4127; might be included into this paper. 5. As we know that COF is not well conductive, could you explain why it was selected?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the manuscript is good enough to be published. The authors addressed each comment in detail and made appropriate changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have satisfied all reviewer's queries. I recommend publication of this work in the present form.