Facile synthesis of porous Mo2C/C composites by using luffa sponge-derived carbon template in molten salt media

Herein, we report the synthesis of a new type of porous Mo2C/C composite by using luffa sponge-derived carbon template and ammonium molybdate ((NH4)6Mo7O24•4H2O) in molten NaCl–KCl salt media. The product exhibits a higher specific surface area and three-dimensional porous structure, including macrochannels, micropores and mesopores. The desirable porous structure results from the carbon template structure and Mo2C coating formed.

4. It would be great if at least one practical application of the verified synthesis product can be demonstrated. 5. I cannot access the authors' data from the link they provided in the Data Accessibility section.
Decision letter (RSOS-190547.R0) 24-Apr-2019 Dear Dr Zeng: Title: Facile synthesis of porous Mo2C/C composites by using luffa sponge-derived carbon template in molten salt media Manuscript ID: RSOS-190547 Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to Royal Society Open Science. On behalf of the Editors and the Royal Society of Chemistry, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript will be accepted for publication in Royal Society Open Science subject to minor revision in accordance with the referee suggestions. Please find the reviewers' comments at the end of this email.
The reviewers and handling editors have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the comments and revise your manuscript.
Because the schedule for publication is very tight, it is a condition of publication that you submit the revised version of your manuscript before 03-May-2019. Please note that the revision deadline will expire at 00.00am on this date. If you do not think you will be able to meet this date please let me know immediately.
To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rsos and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript and upload a new version through your Author Centre.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the referees and upload a file "Response to Referees" in "Section 6 -File Upload". You can use this to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the referees.
When uploading your revised files please make sure that you have: 1) A text file of the manuscript (tex, txt, rtf, docx or doc), references, tables (including captions) and figure captions. Do not upload a PDF as your "Main Document". 2) A separate electronic file of each figure (EPS or print-quality PDF preferred (either format should be produced directly from original creation package), or original software format) 3) Included a 100 word media summary of your paper when requested at submission. Please ensure you have entered correct contact details (email, institution and telephone) in your user account 4) Included the raw data to support the claims made in your paper. You can either include your data as electronic supplementary material or upload to a repository and include the relevant doi within your manuscript 5) All supplementary materials accompanying an accepted article will be treated as in their final form. Note that the Royal Society will neither edit nor typeset supplementary material and it will be hosted as provided. Please ensure that the supplementary material includes the paper details where possible (authors, article title, journal name).
Supplementary files will be published alongside the paper on the journal website and posted on the online figshare repository (https://figshare.com). The heading and legend provided for each supplementary file during the submission process will be used to create the figshare page, so please ensure these are accurate and informative so that your files can be found in searches. Files on figshare will be made available approximately one week before the accompanying article so that the supplementary material can be attributed a unique DOI. ********************************************** RSC Associate Editor: Comments to the Author: (There are no comments.)

RSC Subject Editor:
Comments to the Author: (There are no comments.) ********************************************** Reviewer comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author(s) This manuscript described the synthesis of porous Mo2C/C composite by using luffa sponge as both structure template and carbon source in molten salts media. The biological carbon source was utilized to prepare the carbide, which is interesting. The manuscript was well established and the presentation was clear. Therefore, I would recommend its publication after the following revisions: 1. The textural character of luffa sponge seems to be important and unique for the Mo2C/C composite, which has been described in the manuscript. However, it's not emphasized in the conclusion. It would be better if it can be included in the conclusions. 2. The authors prepared samples with molar ratio of C/Mo = 6:1, why use this ratio? And what is the reason? 3. The equation (1) and (2) should not use the equal signs. 4. The number format of reference 1 in the manuscript was not correct. In addition, there is a word "area" missing at the end of the introduction section.

Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author(s) In this short paper, the authors report on the synthesis of porous Mo2C/C composites by using luffa sponge as a template. The results are interesting. However, there are some issues that the authors need to address before I can recommend its publication. 1. Can the authors elucidate a bit more about the advantages of their synthesis method of Mo2C/C composites over the reported ones in the introduction? 2. In addition to XRD, can the authors use other method (e.g., XPS) to verify the composition of the synthesis product? 3. Can the authors comment on how the SBET can be improved? 4. It would be great if at least one practical application of the verified synthesis product can be demonstrated. 5. I cannot access the authors' data from the link they provided in the Data Accessibility section.