Improving Microbial Fuel Cell Performance Using Porous Capacitive Composite Bioanode Materials with Energy Storage Function

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As a new energy technology with great potential, microbial fuel cell provides a new way to solve energy and environment problems. In this paper, carbon nanotubes/polypyrrole composite anode materials were prepared on porous sponge matrix. The stored energy Qs released by the modified anode is 235.57 C/m2, 6.5 times higher than that of the control electrode. The transfer impedance Rct of the S/CNT/PPy electrode is 5.5 Ω, which is much smaller than the Rct resistance of the control anode (16.8 Ω). This manuscript can be considered for publication in this journal after well addressing the following issues.

1.      Clear statements of the novelty of the work should also appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.

2.      The manuscript has grammatical errors/ typos/ incomplete sentences and non relative phrases.

3.      I think the following articles on designing and improving the energy efficiency will be helpful for manuscript optimization. Such as: Acoustic-electric conversion and triboelectric properties of nature-driven CF-CNT based triboelectric nanogenerator for mechanical and sound energy harvesting. Recent developments in the application of carbon-based nanomaterials in implantable and wearable enzyme-biofuel cells. Waste-to-energy: Utilization of recycled waste materials to fabricate triboelectric nanogenerator for mechanical energy harvesting.

4.      Provide the image of MFC device.

5.      Scale bar is not clear in the SEM figure

6.      Label the functional group peaks for the FTIR figure.

7.      How the power density was calculated?

 

8.      Provide a comparison table.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

I have uploaded a separate file, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper needs major revisions before publication in “Energy”.  

1)      The quality of both language and organization needs to be improved by proofreading by a native English speaker or proofreading service.

2)      “Microbial fuel cell (MFC) is a new green and sustainable energy technology”. This sentence is not correct since MFC is not a new technology.  

3)      Please add three new keywords.

4)      Please reduce the significant figures of the data reported in the paper and figures (Maximum four). Here is an example of significant figures (sig figs):

a.       10082 (5 sig figs)

b.      70,000 (1 sig fig)

c.       0.0025 (2 sig figs)

d.      0.000309 (3 sig figs)

e.       50010.000 (8 sig figs)

5)      Please include a Table of Abbreviations/Nomenclatures.

6)      Some paragraphs are too long. This negatively impacts the structure of the manuscript.

7)      Avoid listing the published data in the introduction. The reported data should be tabulated, and their main concluding remarks should be discussed throughout the text.

8)      The novelty/originality of the paper should be more effectively established. It would be advisable to add a Table to the “Introduction” section, tabulating the latest research works in the field to highlight the novelty of the present work accordingly.

9)      Please briefly discuss the latest trends in microbial fuel cell systems, taking advantage of recent research in this field. Here are some examples, “Review on waste biomass valorization and power management systems for microbial fuel cell application” and “A review on the application of nanomaterials in improving microbial fuel cells” and so on, which could be possibly taken into account by the authors.

10)  Please avoid having heading after heading with nothing in between; either merge your headings or provide a small paragraph in between.

11)  Avoid using abbreviations and symbols in the headings.

12)  Uncertainty analysis is required for experimental works.

13)  All Equations should be numbered and referred to (mentioned) in the text before appearing as 1, 2, ...

14)  Please ensure consistency in presenting units, either using the “/” or “-1” style.

15)  Please avoid reference lumping.

16)  Discussions have not been well supported by proper references.

17)  The obtained results have not been sufficiently compared with the published data. Please ‎add a Table in the “Results and Discussion” section to address this issue.

18)  Add practical implications of the study.

19)  Limitations of the study should be included and discussed.

20)  Please change “Conclusion” to “Conclusions and Prospects”. This part simply presents the results obtained throughout the study.

21)  The obtained results are promising. Nevertheless, future studies should further investigate the results presented using advanced sustainability assessment tools, including life cycle assessment and exergy-based analyses, as elaborated in recent works such as “The role of sustainability assessment tools in realizing bioenergy and bioproduct systems”, “Exergetic sustainability analysis of municipal solid waste treatment systems: A systematic critical review” and “Exergetic, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental aspects of an industrial-scale molasses-based ethanol production plant”, Authors can briefly discuss this need using works such as the example provided, but not necessarily limited to that, and highlight.

22)  Please use the error bar in the figures.

23)  Please add DOIs for all the references, where available.

The paper needs major revisions before publication in “Energy”.  

1)      The quality of both language and organization needs to be improved by proofreading by a native English speaker or proofreading service.

2)      “Microbial fuel cell (MFC) is a new green and sustainable energy technology”. This sentence is not correct since MFC is not a new technology.  

3)      Please add three new keywords.

4)      Please reduce the significant figures of the data reported in the paper and figures (Maximum four). Here is an example of significant figures (sig figs):

a.       10082 (5 sig figs)

b.      70,000 (1 sig fig)

c.       0.0025 (2 sig figs)

d.      0.000309 (3 sig figs)

e.       50010.000 (8 sig figs)

5)      Please include a Table of Abbreviations/Nomenclatures.

6)      Some paragraphs are too long. This negatively impacts the structure of the manuscript.

7)      Avoid listing the published data in the introduction. The reported data should be tabulated, and their main concluding remarks should be discussed throughout the text.

8)      The novelty/originality of the paper should be more effectively established. It would be advisable to add a Table to the “Introduction” section, tabulating the latest research works in the field to highlight the novelty of the present work accordingly.

9)      Please briefly discuss the latest trends in microbial fuel cell systems, taking advantage of recent research in this field. Here are some examples, “Review on waste biomass valorization and power management systems for microbial fuel cell application” and “A review on the application of nanomaterials in improving microbial fuel cells” and so on, which could be possibly taken into account by the authors.

10)  Please avoid having heading after heading with nothing in between; either merge your headings or provide a small paragraph in between.

11)  Avoid using abbreviations and symbols in the headings.

12)  Uncertainty analysis is required for experimental works.

13)  All Equations should be numbered and referred to (mentioned) in the text before appearing as 1, 2, ...

14)  Please ensure consistency in presenting units, either using the “/” or “-1” style.

15)  Please avoid reference lumping.

16)  Discussions have not been well supported by proper references.

17)  The obtained results have not been sufficiently compared with the published data. Please ‎add a Table in the “Results and Discussion” section to address this issue.

18)  Add practical implications of the study.

19)  Limitations of the study should be included and discussed.

20)  Please change “Conclusion” to “Conclusions and Prospects”. This part simply presents the results obtained throughout the study.

21)  The obtained results are promising. Nevertheless, future studies should further investigate the results presented using advanced sustainability assessment tools, including life cycle assessment and exergy-based analyses, as elaborated in recent works such as “The role of sustainability assessment tools in realizing bioenergy and bioproduct systems”, “Exergetic sustainability analysis of municipal solid waste treatment systems: A systematic critical review” and “Exergetic, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental aspects of an industrial-scale molasses-based ethanol production plant”, Authors can briefly discuss this need using works such as the example provided, but not necessarily limited to that, and highlight.

22)  Please use the error bar in the figures.

23)  Please add DOIs for all the references, where available.

Author Response

I have uploaded a separate file, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript can be accepted for publication

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has been throughly revised according to the comments given by the reviewers and can be published in its present form.