Nano Porous Zinc Synthesis on Soft Polyurethane Foam Using Conductive Ink and Electroplating Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors report the development of inexpensive foams, achieving surfaces with a high specific area using conductive ink and electrolytic coatings on the conductive surface. Several parameters were optimized to improve the specific surface area and the nanometer cavities so that the highest current efficiency with the highest coating porosity is produced. The main contributions and results were emphasised and the complexity of understanding the different parameters on the material behaviour was highlighted.

However,  the results presentation, discussion and conclusion still need better detail to understand the present work. As more descriptions seem to improve the manuscript, I recommend acceptance of the paper, with major revision, after the following points are taken into consideration:

1)  Zink always appears with a capitalized letter, however, if the chemical element name is used in the middle of the sentence, it should not be capitalized

2) Figures need to be improved to have a better definition. And several errors are observed in the graphs subtitles that need to be corrected. For example, in Figure 1 the x-axis should be corrected for crushing time (h) and in figure 3 for coating time. And the units of the coating time should be added. In Figure 4 the y-axis should be corrected to Current Efficiency %.

3) The table in figure 5, should be explained. What do that values mean? Any idea of the ratio between zinc and zinc oxide?

4) In section 4.2 the comparison between graphite and graphene is not clear. This should be rephrased

5) In the discussion, the authors are presenting the results again and not discussing all the results together. A discussion connecting all the results should be added.

6) The conclusion should be rephrased. Again the authors are only presenting the main results without linking all the results and a connection with  the aims proposed in the abstract is also missing

7) An error analysis should be made for the different experimental results

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors develop a method of using conductive ink to create inexpensive foams and to achieve surfaces with a very high specific area using conductive ink and electrolytic coatings on the conductive surface. However, some results are not so convincing and lack of clear explanations. My comments are shown below:

1. The diagrams in the manuscript are almost always unclear, and so please take care to resize the lines, symbols and letters, and please use The Time New Roman font for the words.

2. Please indicate which part of the sample was scanned by EDS. In addition, the EDS characterization in Fig.5 only shows the elemental content, how can we tell that it contains ZnO? This is unreasonable. It is recommended to use XPS characterization to analyze its specific substances.

3. The fit of poly ethylene at 20um in Figure 2 is not appropriate and there is no detailed resistivity data for the 17 μm sample.

4. The e diagram in Figure 6 is incorrectly labeled as d.

5. Please synthesize the conclusion into one paragraph and the lack of corresponding data support in conclusion 5.

6. Many statements in the manuscript have grammatical errors and unclear expressions, please revise the logic and improve the language.

7. The references are mostly published long ago and in an inconsistent format.

 

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have described the synthesis method of zinc layer on foam, prior to the battery and catalytic application to have high specific surface. This topic might be interesting to the potential readers of MDPI Metals. However, it is still unclear how the battery life extension can increased by introduction of Zinc. What is the influence of morphology and size on this property?

The authors are advised to iron the introduction. At the moment, introduction contains 2 full pages. Also, the experimental, results and discussion sections are difficult to follow the train of several results in this manuscript, which I ask you to elaborate on. This manuscript describes as scientific report, not as scientific article.

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made the requested changes and agreed to receive them in their current form.

Author Response

Reviewer #2 did not any comments and approved the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have adjusted/improved very limited the manuscript based on reviewers' comments. The authors should revise this more thoroughly. For example, the scale bars of SEM are not readable. The graphs and EDX spectrum are of poor resolution. 

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have not fully improved the manuscript based on reviewers' comments.  In my opinion a general conclusion or the connection between all the results in the discussion is still missing. The figures still need to be improved and concerning the error analysis, how many points for each measurement was performed? Even if the error is low, it should be presented.  Part of the conclusions are written in another language that is not english.

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I'm very sorry but the scale bar on SEM images are very hard to read... And the conclusion must written in English, not in another language.

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf