Next Article in Journal
Impact of Ni Content on the Electrochemical Performance of the Co-Free, Li and Mn-Rich Layered Cathode Materials
Previous Article in Journal
NiFeOx and NiFeCoOx Catalysts for Anion Exchange Membrane Water Electrolysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Electrochem
Volume 4
Issue 1
10.3390/electrochem4010001
Review Report
electrochem-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Morphological Characteristics of Catalyst Layer Defects in Catalyst-Coated Membranes in PEM Fuel Cells

Electrochem 2023, 4(1), 1-20; https://doi.org/10.3390/electrochem4010001
by Muneendra Prasad Arcot 1,*, Magnus Cronin 1, Michael Fowler 1,2 and Mark Pritzker 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Ofelia Jianu
Reviewer 2:
Xuyang Zhang
Electrochem 2023, 4(1), 1-20; https://doi.org/10.3390/electrochem4010001
Submission received: 16 November 2022 / Revised: 29 December 2022 / Accepted: 30 December 2022 / Published: 11 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fuel Cells: Performance and Durability)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a novel study on catalyst defects that is of interest to the research community and industry, hence it is worth publishing. 

Some clarifications may be provided as follows:

Line 131: the authors claim the transfer ratios were 97% (±2%) but there is no uncertainty analysis that can back up the claim. How many times were the experiments repeated? What was the precision of the equipment? I suggest providing an uncertainty analysis to back up the claims.

Line 309: Authors mention an imagine that is not included. Why did the authors choose to mention it if it's not included. Perhaps the image can be included to justify the claim.

Figure 5 presents the OCV measurement of defective and non-defective CCM. The slope is relatively similar for all three cases however, jumps are observed at 10h and 50h for CCM-1, which is expected given that the sample is inspected at those times. Can the authors explain whet happened at 50h to cause such a significant drop in the OCV? The sample was inspected at 10h and a significant drop was not observed - how come? Are the results reproducible?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you for providing valuable comments and suggestions, which have strengthened the quality of this paper. Please see the attachment for a comprehensive response to your comments and suggestions. 

Thank you very much. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your work to Electrochem. The overall quality of the article is good. There are several minor things can make the paper better.

1) Add a table of your abbreviations.

2) Add a summary table of all important data for CCM -1, CCM-2 and CCM -baseline at BOL, MOL and EOL.

3) Add the hydrogen crossover curve of CCM-2 as well in Figure 8 b) as well. 

Best, 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you for providing valuable comments and suggestions, which have strengthened the quality of this paper. Please see the attachment in response to your comments and suggestions. 

Thank you very much.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop