Next Article in Journal
ETCNLog: A System Log Anomaly Detection Method Based on Efficient Channel Attention and Temporal Convolutional Network
Next Article in Special Issue
A Skin Cancer Classification Method Based on Discrete Wavelet Down-Sampling Feature Reconstruction
Previous Article in Journal
Variable Angular Rate Measurement for a Spacecraft Based on the Rolling Shutter Mode of a Star Tracker
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Integrated Vibration Elimination System with Mechanical-Electrical-Magnetic Coupling Effects for In-Wheel-Motor-Driven Electric Vehicles
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Research on the Effects of Different Electrolyte Ratios on Heat Loss Control in Lithium-Ion Batteries

Electronics 2023, 12(8), 1876; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12081876
by Xiaoming Xu 1,2,3, Xinyang Zhang 1,2,3 and Jichao Hong 1,2,3,*
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Electronics 2023, 12(8), 1876; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12081876
Submission received: 26 February 2023 / Revised: 1 April 2023 / Accepted: 14 April 2023 / Published: 16 April 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

     In this manuscript, ‘Research on the effects of different electrolyte ratios on heat loss control in lithium-ion batteries’, the authors have performed a simulation of the effect of electrolyte combinations on the thermal stability of the lithium-ion battery. However, the manuscript requires a major revision before its publication in “Electronics”. The following issues should be addressed in the revised manuscript to improve the overall quality.

 

1.      Authors should compare their results with the previously reported calculations of similar systems (SEI and thermal stability) to validate their study.

2.      The complete details of binders, electrolytes, and solvents involved in the simulation should be included in the ‘Model design and Construction’ section of the revised manuscript.

3.      The more details of the five side reactions considered in the investigation should be elaborated in the main text for a better understanding of readers.

4.      The abbreviation “SEIMC” could be replaced with “SEIMC for the simplicity of terms and symbols.

5.      The language of the manuscript is not appropriate. The revised manuscript should be improved with the help of a professional English editor. Further, the typos should also be corrected, for example, in the abstract “Page 1 - line 15……“structure by adding Phosphoniteneweakensn”….

6.      The reference part of this manuscript is poor and it needs improvement. Some of the references related to SEI and thermal stability should be included in the revised manuscript.

(i)                 Joule (2020) 4, 812-821 (DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2020.03.012)

(ii)               Chem. Eng. J. (2022) 247, 130966 (DOI:10.1016/j.cej.2021.130966)

(iii)             NPJ Comput. Mater. (2018) 4, 15 (DOI: 10.1038/s41524-018-0064-0)

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached text for response comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors propose a thermal model to study the thermal runaway mechanism of Li-ion batteries. Based on the simulation result, the authors concluded that Phosphonitene compound can delay the decomposition of the cell SEI membrane and reduce the energy yield of the cell side reaction. Overall, this is a well-organized study on the topic of using simulation methods to investigate the thermal runaway process of Li-ion batteries. The reviewer has below concerns for authors to answer before it can be published in Electronics.

 

1. For Figures 3, 6 and 9, could the authors clarify why there are 3 X-axises corresponding to the curves of the same color in Figure 6, but not in Figures 3 and 9? Also for figure 9, the black curve seems like not a complete one. The ending point needs to be shown in the curve. 

 

2. In the conclusion, the authors stated two types of compounds Phosphonoimide and Phosphonoalkenes that the reviewer could not find them anywhere in the context. It is confusing with the chemical names in the conclusion that is not corresponding to the abstract. The authors need to revise both the abstract and conclusion, respectively. 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached text for response comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript based on the reviewer's comments. The revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Back to TopTop