Metal-Organic Framework Fabricated V2O5 Cathode Material for High-Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries
, Jungwon Kang 2,* and Alok Kumar Rai 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper titled “Metal-Organic Framework Fabricated V2O5 Cathode Materials for High-Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries” focuses on the synthesis of oval-shaped V2O5 nano-particles illustrating promising electrochemical performances as a cathode material for Li-ion battery applications. This work has been competently carried out with supporting measurement (PXRD, EDS, FE-TEM, and HR-TEM) and electrochemical analysis. The manuscript could be surely published in Coatings journal as most parts of the observations are reasonably correct and well discussed.
I recommend the paper be accepted for publication after consideration of the following issues:
1. It is not clear what you mean by large spaced is it large crystallize size or extended crystal, Please replace the phrase.
2. P1L40: V2O5 is known for its practical application for a long time, so kindly replace the sentence “Recently vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) has attracted great interest due to its mainly 40 variable oxidation states (V2+, V3+, V4+, and V5+).”
3. Compare the electrochemical performances of other V2O5 nanoparticles reported in the literature in comparison to their morphology, and crystallite size.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer#1
We are thankful to all the reviewers for their useful and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have revised the entire manuscript as per the reviewers’ suggestions and believe that the reviewers’ comments would tremendously improve the quality of the present manuscript. All the modifications in the revised manuscript are highlighted in blue color for easy identification. A detailed response to each of the reviewer’s comments is as follows:
Query 1: It is not clear what you mean by large spaced is it large crystallize size or extended crystal, please replace the phrase.
Response: Thank you for needful suggestion. In order to avoid the confusion, the word ‘large-spaced’ is omitted in the revised manuscript.
Query 2: P1L40: V2O5 is known for its practical application for a long time, so kindly replace the sentence “Recently vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) has attracted great interest due to its mainly 40 variable oxidation states (V2+, V3+, V4+, and V5+).”
Response: Thank you for needful correction. As per your suggestion, it is modified as “Vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), a potential transition metal oxide has shown great interest due to its mainly variable oxidation states (V2+, V3+, V4+ and V5+)”.
Query 3: Compare the electrochemical performances of other V2O5 nanoparticles reported in the literature in comparison to their morphology, and crystallite size.
Response: Thank you for needful suggestion. We have added table 1 for a comparison based on electrochemical performance and morphologies between oval-shaped V2O5 nanoparticle electrode with previously reported pure and composites of V2O5 electrode materials in the revised manuscript.
We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed all the valuable comments of the reviewers.
While thanking you in anticipation, I am looking forward a favorable reply.
Best Regards
Professor M. Shaheer Akhtar
New Renewable Energy Materials Development Center (NewREC)
Chonbuk National University, Jeonbuk, Republic of Korea
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The literature cited is too old, so more articles in the past three years and some classical literatures should be cited (at least 30 to 35 up to date references should be cited in the manuscript). References should be updated.
2. In addition, the authors should carefully elaborate the advantages of this study compared to the previous papers in literature. Make a comparison table of your work with previous reported literature.
3. Figure 2 (b): Mention the peaks between 1.5 to 2.7 either related to oxygen, vanadium or something else.
4. Figure 5: Please include the Columbic efficiency variations in both the cyclic and rate tests, and also make correction as Fig 5 instead of Fig 1
5. EIS results should be added to the manuscript.
6. There are several spelling mistakes, please check the English.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #2
We are thankful to all the reviewers for their useful and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have revised the entire manuscript as per the reviewers’ suggestions and believe that the reviewers’ comments would tremendously improve the quality of the present manuscript. All the modifications in the revised manuscript are highlighted in blue color for easy identification. A detailed response to each of the reviewer’s comments is as follows:
Query 1: The literature cited is too old, so more articles in the past three years and some classical literature should be cited (at least 30 to 35 up to date references should be cited in the manuscript). References should be updated.
Response: Thank you for valuable suggestion. As per reviewer’s suggestion, we have cited appropriate recent literature in the revised manuscript.
Query 2: In addition, the authors should carefully elaborate the advantages of this study compared to the previous papers in literature. Make a comparison table of your work with previous reported literature.
Response: Thank you for valuable comment. Table 1 is incorporated to show a comparison based on electrochemical performance and morphologies between oval-shaped V2O5 nanoparticle electrode with previously reported pure and composites of V2O5 electrode materials in the revised manuscript.
Query 3: Figure 2 (b): Mention the peaks between 1.5 to 2.7 either related to oxygen, vanadium or something else.
Response: Thank you for valuable comment. In Fig. 2(b), the peaks between 1.5 to 2.7 are assigned to Pt element and labelled. In general, during the EDS coupled FESEM measurement, Pt coating was performed on sample by ion sputtering.
Query 4: Figure 5: Please include the Columbic efficiency variations in both the cyclic and rate tests, and also make correction as Fig 5 instead of Fig 1
Response: Thank you for valuable comment. We have incorporated the coulombic efficiency graph in Figure 5 and suggested corrections have been made in the revised manuscript.
Query 5: EIS results should be added to the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We are fully agreed with the reviewer’s comment. However, I would like to humbly update the reviewer that my research lab, as well as all the characterization facilities are currently shut down due to the increased number of COVID 19 patients in the city. Hence, it is extremely difficult to conduct the EIS analysis of the electrode. We are sure that the reviewer will understand our situation and excuse me for this unavoidable condition.
Query 6: There are several spelling mistakes, please check the English.
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have thoroughly checked the English of whole manuscript.
We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed all the valuable comments of the reviewers.
While thanking you in anticipation, I am looking forward a favorable reply.
Best Regards
Professor M. Shaheer Akhtar
New Renewable Energy Materials Development Center (NewREC)
Jeonbuk National University, Jeonbuk, Republic of Korea
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made a huge work. Nevertheless, I have noticed several issues:
- Introduction must be expanded. It is to short with a few references
- all equations must be written in appropriate software. A Word built-in is not sufficient
- TGA experiment showed in Figure 1 has awkward shape. What caused mass increased in temperature up to 50 °C?
- What caused the curve shape shown in Figure 4b that curve for first cycle had significantly different shape than those for 2.-4. cycles? I did not find in the paper explanation
I hope I help.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer#3
We are thankful to all the reviewers for their useful and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have revised the entire manuscript as per the reviewers’ suggestions and believe that the reviewers’ comments would tremendously improve the quality of the present manuscript. All the modifications in the revised manuscript are highlighted in blue color for easy identification. A detailed response to each of the reviewer’s comments is as follows:
Query 1: Introduction must be expanded. It is too short with a few references
Response: Thank you for valuable suggestion. We have expanded the introduction by incorporating few recent literatures in the revised manuscript.
Query 2: All equations must be written in appropriate software. A Word built-in is not sufficient
Response: Thank you for valuable suggestion. As per reviewer’s suggestion, all equations are revised using Chemdraw software and described in the revised manuscript.
Query 3: TGA experiment showed in Figure 1 has awkward shape. What caused mass increased in temperature up to 50 °C?
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. In TG-DTA, the very slight increase in weight (~2-4%) is observed near 50 °C might be resulted from the instrument error.
Query 4: What caused the curve shape shown in Figure 4b that curve for first cycle had significantly different shape than those for 2.-4. cycles? I did not find in the paper explanation
Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. In the CV curve, first cathodic scan is significantly different in shape which is due to multiple irreversible reduction peaks at ~3.35 V, ~3.16 V, ~2.29 V, ~2.23 V, ~2.0 V and ~1.83 V attributed to the multistep lithiation of V2O5 and formation of SEI layer at electrode/electrolyte interface. While during subsequent cycles, these multiple reduction peaks are completely vanished and two main broad peaks located at ~2.4 V and ~3.5 V are observed and hence, make it different from the first cycle. It is now incorporated in the revised manuscript.
We hope that we have satisfactorily addressed all the valuable comments of the reviewers.
While thanking you in anticipation, I am looking forward a favorable reply.
Best Regards
Professor M. Shaheer Akhtar
New Renewable Energy Materials Development Center (NewREC)
Jeonbuk National University, Jeonbuk, Republic of Korea
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors has greatly improved the manuscript. Now the manuscript meets the criteria of "Coatings".
