Review Reports - Advances of Sensitive Infrared Detectors with HgTe Colloidal Quantum Dots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled “Advances of Sensitive Infrared Detectors with HgTe Colloidal Quantum Dots” reviews the recent progress on infrared detectors based on HgTd CQDs. This article starts with synthesis techniques of HgTe CQDs, and covers device aspects including photoconductors, phototransistors and photovoltaic cells. I believe this review will provide general idea of infrared photodetectors based on CQDs to the readers of Coatings. Therefore, I recommend to accept this paper after minor revision.

1) It would be beneficial for the readers if the author kindly include the definition of some metrics such as gain, responsivity (R) and the specific detectivity (D^*). 2) In some places, the abbreviation for colloidal quantum dots are not used. 3) Why does the photoconductor structure suffer from dark current 1/f noise? The photoconductor structure could be either vertical or lateral. Does the statement apply for the both architecture? 4) In the conclusion and outlook part, the author should discuss about the challenges of HgTe CQDs for the applications in infrared detection.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review for the manuscript:

Entitled: "Advances of Sensitive Infrared Detectors with HgTe Colloidal Quantum Dots"

for Coatings.

With ID: coatings-876677

Dear authors,

Thank you for your manuscript.

General comments

Comments for the Authors

This work is somehow within the scope of Coatings since I do not see relevant material in the Journal and references to the Journal in the manuscript, but it may be of interest to most of the readers of this journal. It shows an introductory background material, sufficient for someone not an expert in this area to understand the context and significance of this work, with good, but few references to follow. For a Review article someone would expect further analysis in certain paragraphs (please see specific comments below) and direct comparisons with other materials. In general, the manuscript is well written. For all the above and the specific comment below, I have opted to recommend a Major Revision for this manuscript.

Specific comments

P1,L1: Since the article is a review please correct ‘article’ to ‘review’.

P1, L21: ‘scientific analysis’. Please be more specific.

P1, L28: ‘PbS detector with a response wavelength of 3μm, and Ge:Hg, PbSe, Ge:X, InSb and HgCgTe’ Please provide also the chemical names for every detector.

P1, L33: ‘The first generation infrared detectors’ Please provide more information regarding the generations of infrared detectors along with appropriate references.

P2, L47: ‘compatibility with CMOS semiconductor processes to promote civilian applications.’ Such as? Please be more specific. For a Review article someone could expect more detailed analysis and of course, more references to follow.

P2, L59: ‘CQDs have demonstrated the highest infrared spectral absorption tunability’ Please be more specific.

P5, L149: ‘phototransistors detected light by sensing photocurrent changes following light,’ Please revise.

P8, L241: ‘PMMA’ -> ‘Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)’.

P9, L291: ‘the active layers need to be grown by high-temperature epitaxy, which is already several orders of magnitude higher cost than standard silicon wafers, and must be flip-chip hybridization with ROICs via indium bumps, which further increases the cost.’ Please revise

P10. L300: ‘monolithic image sensors have an orders of magnitude’ Please revise.