Fiber-Based Sensors and Energy Systems for Wearable Electronics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

congratulations on really well written and studious paper.

Here are  few  suggestions to consider:

 

(1) Line 37 - the title should be on next page

(2) Lines 63 and 77 - before word "and" shoudn't be comma

(3) Line 77 -  beginning of the sentence - capital letter 

      These film e-skins usually...

(4) When citing a paper with more authors and using "et al.", in the first part of the paper you put comma after the name of the first author (see lines 82, 104, 112, 131, 141,etc.), but in other cases you didn't put comma (lines 121, 209, 220, 244, etc.). Please, make it uniform.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The review article by Jungjoon Lee et al. discusses applications of fibers for sensors and energy. The main application for wearable electronics is discussed. The authors have made a good review and presentation in a quite comprehensive way. However, the manuscript should be revised to maximize the benefit to readers and cover significant aspects. More discussion and comprehensive comparison should be added. After major revision, if the authors provide detailed discussion and add improvement, it should be interesting to consider for publication.
2. There are many similar review papers in the literature on similar topics. The authors should state clearly what the different contribution of this review.
3. The authors may wish to summarize a table showing the relevant reviews/books on this topic.
4. It would be great if the authors could identify some literature trends based on a citation/numbers of publication analysis.
5. The first time the authors use an abbreviation in the text, please give the spelled-out version.
(such as Line#81. “ELD technique”)
6. Please check some words (e.g., polycarbonate, TPE, etc.) can be used as the full spelled-out version, rather than the abbreviations. You may use abbreviations to avoid cumbersome repetition and enhance understanding, not just as a writing shortcut.
7. To make the review more substantial, the authors may wish to introduce more very recent examples and publish reviews, e.g., Review https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201902034 ; Review https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201902549 ; https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201902664 etc.
8. The authors have discussed some challenges/limitations. However, challenges to develop new fiber-based electronics (for sensor/energy applications) and limitations of the existing arts can be listed clearly as a diagram or table. The authors can then discuss each category, along with those challenges/limitations. This would be helpful.
9. Different approaches to fabricate electronic fibers should be summarized and compared. In addition to only collect a thorough survey of the most relevant research articles, current debates and significant gaps in the research should also be added.
10. Effects of using different materials or different synthesis approaches on gauge factor should be commented on.
11. Pros and cons when using carbon‐based materials, conductive polymers, or metal oxide nanoparticles for developing supercapacitors should be commented. Discussion on electrolytes when integration with fibers is missing. The challenge toward wearable applications (e.g., when using H2SO4‐PVA gel polyelectrolyte) or the challenge when integrating the electrolyte with fibers should be discussed.
12. This review seems to focus on fiber‐based electronics; however, few examples of completely colorimetric sensors (not related to electrons/electricity) are also included. This leads to unclear and not well-organized ideas of the paper. Photosensing fibers are ok.
13. In the last section showing perspectives, it should be of interest to better explain the emerging trends and commercialization efforts.
14. It would be interesting to highlight a section showing the state-of-the-art fibers for sensors that have been accepted to be used in the clinic (not only experimental stages in the lab).
15. Many Data and Figures are not clearly visible. Texts can be modified and enlarged.
16. This revised article would be improved by careful editing, considering some stylistic and grammatical errors. It will be clear to follow the author’s discussion.
16.1. Line 71. “[6,25,26]. these film e‐skins” Capital “T”
16.2. Line 100 (SWCNT)[] (Figure 1a) [45]. Remove []?
16.3. Etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript considering suggestions and comments. It is good for publication.