請各位幫我看看這種情況有必要argue嗎？上訴有希望嗎？

Reviewer #1: This research reported the amino phosphonic acid resin as host to solve the lithium anode issues in LMBs. The APAR represents 3D and lithiophilic features, which is benefit to the absorption and deposition of Li. The results of experiments and computational simulation indicated the advantages of APAR in LMBs. However, the essence of the manuscript is just the common design of 3D lithiophilic host, which is not innovation enough for the current researches in LMBs. Meanwhile, the electrochemical performances of half and symmetrical cells in Figure 5 are also not good enough compared to other reported published literature. Therefore, it is not recommended to publish this manuscript in Advanced Functional Materials.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript reports the application of cross-linked lithiophilic amino phosphonic acid resin as the effective host material for the lithium metal batteries. The half-cell shows a Coulombic efficiency (CE) of 98.8% over 130 cycles. The symmetrical cell exhibits stable cycling lifetime over 1150 hours with small voltage hysteresis of 16 mV. I would like to give a favorable recommendation if the authors address the following issues in a revision.

1. This has confused me for a long time, what are the actual differences between the Li-metal anodes with host materials and the graphite anodes. The theoretical capacity and potential have both weighed in the evaluation of the significances of the pure Li metal anode. Please provide the surface loading of the Li on the APAR host, and the theoretical capacity of this anode.
2. All the adsorption energies in Figure 4 are positive. A positive adsorption energy means that the adsorbate is thermodynamically unfavorable to be absorbed on the substrates. I guess the authors messed up with the sign of adsorption energies. The authors should refer to the comprehensive review (Energy Environ. Mater. 2019, 2, 264-279) about DFT calculations for battery materials.
3. In Figure 5f, the Cu@Li symmetric cell with the widely used ether based electrolyte (with 1 wt% LiNO3) exhibits the worst cycling stability that I has ever seen.
4. The author have some errors and typos in main text and reference section. Please carefully revise the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript reported that the dendrite growth of lithium metal anode was supressed by using cross-linked lithiophilic amino phosphonic acid resin (APAR) with Li+-pumping feature as the effective host. The Li-O2 full cells with APAR@Li anodes and Super P cathodes deliver high energy density and good cyclability due to the high reversibility of APAR@Li was applied. The working mechanism of APAR was demonstrated by DFT calculations and finite element simulation. This study reported a novel strategy for suppressing dendritic Li growth by guiding high and uniform Li+ concentration distribution at the electrode/electrolyte interface. The paper is well structured and provided a clear interpretation to help us understand the function of lithiophilic polymer in the suppression of lithium dendrite, therefore, I recommend the paper could be published in AFM with minor revision.

1. In Figure S5, the high Zeta potential of 3D APAR scaffold (nearly +33 mV) in the electrolyte
confirms its strong affinity towards Li+ ions. Whether the absorption is from both physical absorption or chemical absorption? The pore volume of the 3D APAR scaffold should be measured to estimate the physical absorption if the equipment is available.
2. In this manuscript, experimental results give a clear evidence that the APAR can mitigate the volume change of the Li metal anode in Figure 2n. The detailed interpretation of how the APAR mitigate the volume change of lithium metal anode should be provided.
3. In Figure 5e, please explain why the impedance of APAR@Li decreases after cycling. 返回小木蟲查看更多