The Adhesive Force Measurement between Single μLED and Substrate Based on Atomic Force Microscope

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper needs more effort and the authors should consider the following comments: 

1. In the abstract section:

- Should contain more information about the methodology and the main results.

- Also, do not use abbreviations without definitions.

2. The Introduction section:    

- Figure 1 is "odd", should be cited in the paragraphs and moved to section 2.

- Extensive English revision is needed.

- More stat-of-the-art work should be cited for the adhesion test between a single μLED and the substrate.

- in the last paragraph of the introduction, a summary about the paper structure should be mentioned.

3. Section 2:

- All symbols should be defined and the authors should take care of The "Capital" and the "Small" letters.

- Symbols in Figure 3 should be defined.

4. section 3:

- All experimental steps and conditions should be mentioned.

5. In the conclusion section:

- Should be more informative and contain the obtained results.

6. References: more recent references are needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper attempt to measure the adhesive force between a μLED and the substrate using an atomic force microscope. They further do also provide a relationship between pulling speed, preload, and adhesion. This is an important area of research and the research presented can be a good contribution to the literature. But for that to happen, the authors need to seriously re-write the manuscript. The manuscript in its present form is not of the sufficient standard for publication in a scientific journal. Some of the observations regarding the manuscript are:

1.       The manuscript is not sufficiently and appropriately referenced. Improve the quality of your references and add some recent studies on the topic as most of the references are pretty old.

2.       At line 47, the authors claim “…….‘theoretical technology’ which is the mechanism……”, what is the ‘theoretical technology’ that the authors refer to?

3.       At line 58, the authors claim “… there is no literature on the adhesion test between a single μLED and the substrate.” But the manuscript fails to elaborate on the significance of or the need to calculate the adhesion force for a single μLED.

4.       The section 2.2 “The theory relationship between pull-off forces to preload” has no references what-so-ever.

5.       All of the equations with the exception of equation 1. Are they derived? Because if these are derived, it is unclear how are these relationships derived. On the other hand, if these relationships are already given in the literature, why did the authors not cite references for them?

6.       The Figure 4a – 4c need to be properly labeled as at present it is difficult for the reader to decipher what they are showing.

7.       The graph shown in Figure 4D is of extremely poor quality. Improve the quality of this graph.

8.       Explanation of the Figure 4D is provided but not very clearly provided. So improve the explanation of the graph in Figure 4D.

9.       Section 3.2 shows the measurement of adhesion, but it fails to show how exactly were these results obtained from the equations given in Section 2.2

10.   The conclusion seems to be hastily written and needs serious improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is ok now and can be published in the current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The theoretical relationship section still remains unreferenced. 

2. The authors have still not shown whether equations 3 -10 are derived or taken from some source. If they are derived, the derivation should be shown and mentioned in the manuscript, if they are taken from a source, citations must be provided for them. 

3. Figure 4 has been improved, but there still is room for improvement to bring clarity to each step. These steps must also be properly described in the caption so that to make it understandable for a reader what is happening in each step.

4. Figures 4b and 4c show a serious bent in the cantilever. Is the cantilever able to bend this much? What is the angle of the bent and how was it calculated?

5. There are some grammatical errors in the manuscript. The language of the manuscript needs improvement. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc