Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors report on developing segregated structure composites with superior conductivity and EMI shielding properties. This manuscript is well written, and the overall data clearly demonstrate the system design and advantageous features. I believe that readers of Nanomaterials may be interested in this study. This manuscript can be accepted after some minor revisions.

1. EMI shielding is the key application in this manuscript. A schematic illustration of the EMI shielding mechanisms should be provided.
2. For the segregated structure, is there a significant multiple reflection effect for EMI shielding? The authors should discuss this point.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents segregated-structure polymer composites using aminated graphene (AmG) as a conductive filler. The composites exhibit a significant conductivity enhancement at low filler loading (1 wt.%), along with promising EMI shielding performance. While the work demonstrates certain merits, there remain several aspects requiring further refinement.

1.Why can aminated graphene (AmG) facilitate the formation of segregated-structure polymer composites?

2.How is a uniform distribution of low-content AmG within the matrix ensured? What are the interactions between AmG and the polymer matrix?

3.Please clarify the relative contributions of absorption and reflection, and explain why the shielding is described as “absorption-dominated” despite the very low absorption coefficient. The following study may be referred to: Materials Today Chemistry, 2025, 49, 103048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtchem.2025.103048

4.The incorporation of AmG significantly reduces the tensile strength. Is there evidence of interfacial debonding or filler aggregation leading to stress concentration? Are SEM fracture images available to support this explanation?

5.Are the reported electrical conductivity, mechanical properties, and EMI shielding parameters based on multiple independent measurements? It is recommended to provide standard deviations and sample sizes to improve statistical reliability.

6.The manuscript lacks a systematic comparison with previously reported aminated graphene/polymer composites in terms of conductivity and EMI shielding performance. It is suggested to include a comparison table in the discussion section to highlight the advantages or differences of this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this research is interesting, and the experimental work appears to be well conducted. However, the presentation of the results could be improved for greater clarity and readability. My general comments are provided in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work reported an aminated graphene (AmG) as functional conductive fillers for fabricating polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-tetrafluoroethylene) (P(VDTFE))-based composites with segregated structures. The electron microscopy, core-level and near-edge spectroscopy, optical spectroscopy, and electrical measurements for AmG are tested. At a filler loading of only 1 wt.%, the segregated composites reached electrical conductivity up to 1.35 × 10^-4 S/cm. At 11 GHz, the AmG-filled P(VDFTFE) composite showed 15.1 dB attenuation for a theoretical thickness of 30 mm. Overall, the work demonstrates the significant in fabricating the functional materials with structural design. Therefore, I recommend further consideration after revisions. There are some suggestions the author should consider:

1. In Introduction section, as introduced the electrically conductive polymer composites and their application, this related work regarding on graphene-based functional materials could be focused to enrich the text: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40820-025-02024-4
2. In L.63-71, the main introduction focuses on GO and its derivatives. More detailed information about graphene is more in line with this article.
3. In section 3.1, as mentioned “the restoration of the conjugated network” of AmG after amination treatment proofed by XPS, optical and electrical tests, a concern is whether AmG would have more defects compared to traditional reduced oxidized graphene (rGO). This article did not directly compare the differences between conventional rGO and AmG.
4. In Figure 2, it is suggested to swap the positions of the GO (bottom line) and AmG (upper line) to match the sequence of material preparation.
5. As noticed that “the ID/IG ratio and the full width at half maximum of the D band remain nearly unchanged after GO reductive amination”, “the formation of vacancy-type defects and distortions in the graphene lattice induced by amine incorporation and, in particular, by folding of the AmG sheets”, does this result contradict the afore-mentioned “the restoration of the conjugated network”.
6. In SEM or TEM images, why can't observe the sheet-like graphene structure?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After checking the draft of the response to the comments, and the corresponding revision in the revised manuscript, I found the authors accomplished a substantial revision. As a consequence, I recommend the publication of this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have answered all my comments and improved clarity and overall quality of the manuscript. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been well revised. It is recommended to accept in present form.