Cu(In,Ga)Se2 Solar Cells Integrated with Subwavelength Structured Cover Glass Fabricated by One-Step Self-Masked Etching
, Min-Ho Choi 2, Young-Hyun Song 1, Ju-Hyung Yun 3, Min-Su Park 4,* and Jae-Hyung Jang 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Authors should clearly describe the conditions for one-step self-masked etching. If the conditions are the same as for dry etching using Ag nanoparticles, then the authors should write how self-masked etching occurs, since no polymer is formed from the plasma of pure CF4 [J. W. Coburn and Harold F. Winters. Plasma etching—A discussion of mechanisms. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology 16, 391 (1979); doi: 10.1116/1.569958. Pages 397-398.].
- There is a typo on line 97: "nanaoparticles" should be replaced with "nanoparticles".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors proposed a facile approach to synthesize subwavelength structures for the fabrication of CIGS solar cells, and the efficiency of the solar cells integrated with the SWSs was enhanced by 6% owing to the improved average transmittance from 92.4% to 95.2%. The results are well presented and analyzed in a systematic manner with good English. Thus, the referee considers that the submitted results will give readers a valuable aid point and further opportunity for the investigations in this field. Therefore, the experimental work and the discussion presented by the authors are of fine quality & scope in order to be suitable for the publication in this journal, which is required a major revision before publication as shown below.
Comment 1：The author failed to clarify the difference between one-step self-masked etching and direct dry etching. Did difference come from the annealing. As reported by many works, the configuration of metallic nanoparticles can be controlled by annealing temperature (i.e. DOI: 10.1039/c5ce02439k, DOI 10.1186/s11671-015-1084-z). It’s better to show the annealing temperature effect on the etching process.
Comment 2：In Figure3, there are no labels indicate (a) and (b).
Comment 3：The average transmittance was slightly improved by only 2.8% from 92.4% to 95.2%, which was not too noticeable within error range. The author is suggested to provide the reproducibility of the transmittance and efficiency of the resulting solar cells.
Comment 4：It’s better to provide full term of CIGS solar cells to improve the clarity, although it has been widely known.
Comment 5：The author should give a reasonable explanation of the morphological difference after etching via for two etching method, as the self-mask was derived from Ag nanoparticles after annealing.
Comment 6：There are many types and errors appeared in current version. Therefor, a significant modification is required for the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript can be accepted in current shape
