High-Capacitance Manganese Dioxide Oxide/Carbon Nanotube/Carbon Felt as a Bioanode for Enhanced Energy Output in Microbial Fuel Cells

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The high-capacitance manganese dioxide oxide-carbon nanotubes/carbon felt as bioanode for enhanced energy output in microbial fuel cells was described in this paper. In this study, MnO2 with carbon nanotube was chosen to in-situ modify carbon felt as capacitive bioanode  to improve the power generation and energy storage of MFC. In this work, a capacitive multilayer anode was designed which could be used for both power generation of microbial fuel cells. It should be noted  the excellent biocompatibility of carbon nanotubes  and the good capacitive property of MnO2.  It seems that this study provided a new strategy for improving power 

 production in MFCs for scaled-up applications.

The paper is very interesting and deals with an important topic. 

The development of MFCs may allow wastewater to be perceived as an energy source.

The work is good described.

The references was good choosen.

After careful consideration of this work, I believe that this manuscript can be published in current form.

Author Response

Thank you for your encouragement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors! Thank you for submitting your manuscript to "Coatings". I have read your article which deals with the investigation of a new bio-anode for microbial fuel cells. I would like to say that the research theme is quite topical and the article is appropriate for the scope of "Coatings". However, the article in its current form is not ready for publication - the article gives the impression of being sloppily written, and needs a lot of revision.

The main comments are listed below:

1. The article contains many grammatical errors (e.g., paragraph 2.1 on lines from 119 to 134 is difficult to read). The text of manuscript needs to be proof-read by a native English speaker.

2.  The reference list contains very old articles. The most recent reference is from 2018. Research on microbial fuel cells is now extensive and advanced. This is not reflected in the manuscript.

3. The introduction does not show the actuality of the presented research - it contains the general phrases with non-relevant references (lines 28-60, Refs [1-6]). 

4. The references in the manuscript are mixed up. Wang - it is [13]. Zhang - it is [12]. [14] - it is Lv. Also, Ref [13]=[31].

5. What was the point of presenting the X-ray data? It would be useful for the reader, to sign the peaks of the different phases on the XRD pattern in Fig. 3.

6. The captions in Fig. 4 are mixed up. Please correct.

7. The reference to Fig. 5 is missing in the text. Please correct.

8. Lines 236-250. What are EP_c, EP_a in Eqs. 1.1, 1.2? What is K in Eq. 1.2?  Is it k? What is Ep in Line 241? Is it E_p? What is the Laviron model? What is the value of the anode in Line 246?  Please correct the mistakes and typos, decode all the abbreviations and parameters, and add the corresponding references.

9. Lines 253-263. What are the values of i_h, i_s for the two anodes studied? They are discussed, but they are missing from the text. It would be useful to add the table with the values of i_h, i_s, Q_s, Q_t.

10. In the discussion part it would be useful to include the comparative table with the power density data for the anodes studied in the present work and for the analogue bio-anodes from the literature.

11. Please check the references [28-32] in Line 273. It is not clear that they are necessary at that place. If the charge storage mechanism has been proposed previously, please provide a specific reference.

The text of manuscript must be proof-read by a native English speaker.

Author Response

We upload a separate file. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We upload a separate file. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors! Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript, and for your attention to my comments. The text was improved.

ok

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript and provided the missing information. It can be accepted for publication in Coatings