Synthesis of Physically Activated Carbons from Vitellaria paradoxa Shells for Supercapacitor Electrode Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Comments to Author’s:  

inorganics-3647978

This Manuscript, I recommend Major revision critical review comments given bellow.

1. Line 22 and 24, align properly text “processing” “process”
2. Provide more cycling data performance 5000 or 10,000 cycles. “93.5% Retention after 3000 cycles”
3. Clarify provide the proper scientific meaning response: The specific surface area (SBET) of 1527 m²g-1 !!, very high and pores, but why specific capacitance of 47.5 F g-1 at 0.5 A g-1 ?
4. The main quarries this shea nut shells (SNS) available world wide mostly ?, then how its useful product for energy storage supercapacitor’s?
5. 1(d) Raman analysis, incorrect information values I_D/I_G values for AC_CO₂ and AC_H₂O, calculated from the ratio of the peak heights, are 1.0 and 1.093 or 1.0 and 1.093.
6. Revise the Figure 2. SEM micrograph surface images is very high magnified, if possible, revise the SEM analysis 10 um, 5 um, 1 um. (Fig. 2c, 2f what’s the meaning by ?.
7. Figure 3. BET surface isotherm plots is mistake, revise the data (or) may be send raw data revised manuscript with reviewer comments.
8. Figure 5. CV, GCD curves at various voltage range incorrect? -3, to +3 V (2.5V _ 2.5V)?
9. Provide the first images like Fig. 1, graphical image.
10. Reference format not suitable Auhtor1, Author2. et.al., must revise it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Joshua Atta Alabi et.al proposed the synthesis of two kind of activated carbon with high surface area and good supercapacitance performance. The results are interesting, but this manuscript should be revised majorly before its consideration of publication in this journal. Detailed comments could be found as follows.

1. There exist mistakes in equation (1) in the line 372.
2. The IR peak at about 2349cm^-1 is often attributed to CO₂, so it’s unreasonable to assign it to ketene groups. There also are questions about the analysis of IR peaks at 1458, 1381 and 1253 cm^-1.
3. In the analysis of Raman spectra of the activated carbons, special care should be taken to attribute the peaks at 1358 cm^-1 and 1580cm^-1 to the D band and G band. And the contribution from amorphous carbon should also be considered from the deconvolution of the spectra. The following literatures could help to analyze the Raman spectra and get more insights into the carbon surface structure:  Carbon, 2024, 222, 118998.
4. The desorption curve of N₂ adsorption should be supplemented to illustrate the type of adsorption/desorption isotherms as the desorption curve could help to get more information on pore structure.
5. There are also mistakes in the analysis of O 1s XPS spectra, where the peak at 531.9 eV could be ascribed to the C-O-C not to carboxyl groups. The following works is expected to help to analyze the XPS spectra:  Carbon, 2014, 77, 175-183.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work took a systematic investigation of biobass-derived activated carbon from view of two differenct activators (CO2 and H2O) for the use of supercapactitors. I think the study is suitable for publication after addressing the following issues in the revision process.
1. Where do the N species from? The FTIR spectra of raw materials should be shown to confirm it.
2. The D band can be fitted by detailed defect modes. Please refer [10.1002/smll.202311778] to understand the fitting.
3. It should be noted that the activation temperature and time also show great impact on the pore structure. Do you take a study on this issue to optimize the structure and performance?
4. AC-CO2 had a higher C/N content, which can boost more pseudocapacitance to total capacitance, but the electrode showed lower specific capacitance. Which factor do you think affect this contradiction? Please do a structure-performance retionship on this issue.
5. The numbers [(a) (b) (c)..} in each figure 1 and 3 are suggested to keep a consistent location (such as, top left corner) for better readership.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the reviewers comments in the revised manuscript and this revisions have improved the quality and clarity of the work. The current version meets the publication standards of the journal.
I recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its present form

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is proper to publish now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered my question carefully and made the corresponding revision on the manuscript.