Self-Powered Triboelectric Nanogenerator for Security Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work, the TENG device, which is based on the lateral sliding mode, was presented for self-powered security. The features of a designed TENG sensor were introduced, and its base triboelectric property was demonstrated. However, the investigation is insufficient to design the optimized TENG sensor for self-powered security. Therefore, it is hard to accept this work for publication in Micromachines in this form. A major revision is required, and the final decision can be made with the revised manuscript.
1. There are no experiment results or explanations related to the optimization design of the proposed TENG sensor. The authors should logically explain why the final shape is an appropriate sensor structure.
2. In lateral sliding (LS) mode-TENGs, the gap distance between electrodes is vital to create clear triboelectric signals. For a clear triboelectric generation, the gap distance should be identical to the width of the electrodes. However, it looks like the gap distance is smaller than the width of the bottom electrodes. Please explain why the gap distance is smaller than the width of the bottom electrodes.
3. In the LS mode, velocity is a vital variable. Therefore, to objectively understand the triboelectric behavior of LS-TENGs, it is required to investigate the effect of velocity on the triboelectric behavior carefully. However, in this work, the velocity effects were too simply presented, as shown in Figure 4d. I recommend more experiments related to the effects of velocity on triboelectric property.
4. The methodology section is poorly written. The authors should improve that section by including the measurement and test sub-sections. Without an explanation related to the test environment and equipment, it is hard to evaluate the objectiveness of the investigation.
5. In Figure 5a, the mechanical durability of LS-TENG is presented. Until Day 5, the triboelectric performance has increased. Then, the triboelectric performance noticeably dropped. Please explain why. Related to comment 4, please explain how performed the mechanical durability test with details.
6. In Figure 1, the width of the Al electrode is written as 4 cm. Please check carefully. Furthermore, there is an error in subscript and superscript. Please check this carefully.
Author Response
All comments are addressed
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors try to present an investigation on the self-powered sliding mode TENG integrated with the secret locker or table's draw. Comments and suggestions are as follows.
(1) The main concern of this work is that the experimental data is too few. It is hard to get any convincing conclusions just from very few results, e.g., several simple images in Figures 6-8 are not enough to make any proper argument. If possible, please add more interesting results to make the paper more scientific, not just an ordinary experimental report.
(2) In case of the References, there are only 13 references, almost NO reference is cited in the results and discussion sections. Moreover, 6 references are belonged to the authors themselves. Furthermore, half of the other references are review paper. That information further confirms the submitted manuscript is more like a technical report. If possible, please modify these bad conditions.
(3) Figure 5, please describe the meaning of stability and durability. The experimental times is a more important parameter compared with the day.
(4) Figures 7 and 8, why the experiments are conducted outside by hand, not inside of the real table draw? Please add supplementary video to confirm the results if possible.
(5) The title of this paper is too board and this work is just a very simple report.
(6) Please rewrite the Abstract if possible, there are too many background information.
(7) Page 1, Line 14, electromagnetic induction is absolutely wrong for TENG.
(8) Please add some specific words in the Keywords, not just BIG word.
Author Response
All comments are addressed
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors thoroughly revised the issues that I mentioned. The result is logical and acceptable. Therefore, I recommend accepting this work in its current form for publication in Micromachines.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have strongly enhanced the quality of the revised manuscript according to the two reviewers' comments and suggestions. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for publication in Micromachines.
