Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry Analyses of Self-Assembled Monolayers of Octadecyltrimethoxysilane on SiO2 Substrate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Authors have written the introduction very well. Attention to detail and background is excellent.
- Line 78 has a typo- It should be ToF-SIMS. Letter F is missing.
- Line 79 has a typo- should be SAM's.
- Line 85- why is there a number 4 at the end of the sentence?
- Material/methods section could use the addition of duration of each processes.
Author Response
1. Authors have written the introduction very well. Attention to detail and background is excellent.
_____
I am grateful to the reviewer for valuing our work, pointing out several typos and suggesting the addition of duration for processes. I have carefully edited the manuscript have had it proofread by a native speaker, with the revisions tracked in the revised manuscript. I believe that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.
2. Line 78 has a typo- It should be ToF-SIMS. Letter F is missing.
_____
The typo was corrected.
3. Line 79 has a typo- should be SAM's.
_____
The typo was corrected.
4. Line 85- why is there a number 4 at the end of the sentence?
_____
The typo was corrected.
5. Material/methods section could use the addition of duration of each process.
_____
The duration for three processes was added (lines 96 and 102).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very good paper that deserves publication in Applied Science. The paper reports the characterization of SAMs on SiO2 surfaces. The authors provided a lot of interesting data, and wrote the paper very carefully. The paper can attract the attention of a wide readership. It should be published with minor revisions.
- Please check the whole paper carefully. For instance, "Our ToF-SIMS analyses aim at providing unique infor-mation on understanding the interface chemistry of OTMS SAMs. 4" at the end of Section 1. Here it is strange that "4" exists at the end of the paper.
Author Response
I am grateful to the reviewer for valuing our work and suggesting checking the manuscript carefully. I have carefully edited the manuscript have had it proofread by a native speaker, with the revisions tracked in the revised manuscript. The mentioned “4” is a typo and has been removed.
I believe that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf