The article reports substantial reductions in impedance and capacitance values of up to 80.7 F g⁻¹ for heat- and acid-treated PVA/MWCNT electrodes, but several aspects of the electrochemical record require clarification. Section 2.4 states a polarization scan rate of 100 mV min⁻¹, whereas Figure 8 presents measurements at 10, 20, 50, and 100 mV s⁻¹. In addition, Equation 1 appears to convert the instantaneous current at each potential directly into “specific capacity,” and the maximum plotted value is reported as specific capacitance; please clarify how the full voltammograms, electrode masses, areas, and potential windows were used to calculate the reported 80.7 and 34 F g⁻¹ values.
The EIS tables likewise appear to derive capacitance from , but the equivalent circuit, fitting procedure, fit quality, electrode-contact configuration, and replicate variability are not provided. Could the authors make available the original CV and EIS files, electrode masses, calculation worksheets, circuit model, fitting residuals, and replicate-level results? Clarification is also needed because the electrospinning flow rate of 0.06 μL min⁻¹ would dispense only 0.0108 mL in the stated three-hour run, and because Methods assign 0.2% NaCl to the forcespinning solution whereas the Results state that it was used for electrospinning. These points are necessary to determine whether the quantitative electrochemical conclusions remain valid.