You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Gieun Kim,
  • Songeun Hong and
  • Suho Yoo
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Hongliang Zhang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript content is appropriately presented. Quality of work is excellent. 

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer whose comments have helped us a lot in improving the quality of this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Specific comments from referee to Author

Dear

Manuscript number: coatings-1457411

Solution-Processed All-Solid-State Electrochromic Devices Based on SnO2/NiO doped with Tin

Comments:

The work entitled “Solution-Processed All-Solid-State Electrochromic Devices Based on SnO2/NiO doped with Tin”,” describes interesting results about photochromic and electrochromic of SnO2/NiO doped with Tin. The paper fits the scope of Coatings. However, it is not clear the experimental procedure and is losing some information.

 In this conditions the paper is also recommended after major revisions

 

Abstract

OK

 

Introduction

Should be interesting to write something about the use of UV-O3 and silicon oil in other films

  1. Experimental
  2. Experimental
  3. i) What about the specific are of work?

 

2.2.2.Solt coating

On page 4 line  163, please specified the meaning of PI film

 

  1. Results and Discussion

3.1 Photochromic properties of Sn-doped NiO film

  1. i) on page 6 figure 5, what about the adhesion of the film on the substrate, in order to do the measurements of the thickness
  2. ii) very very interesting results about photochromic properties,, what about photodifussion of the film with and without UV-O3

iii) Is possible to do a graph of the chromaticity?

  1. iv) You present optical. Morphology and electrochemical properties, what about the structural result, should be interesting for example x-ray diffraction of the film, and this result compare with you photochromic and electrochromic responses.
  2. vi) on page 8 line 238, please explain the differences between Rs and Rpv, nad the importance in the electrochemical respoinses.
  3. vi) on page 9 line 293, why you use high scan rate on voltammograms

Author Response

Please see the attachment. We are grateful to the reviewer whose comments have helped us a lot in improving the quality of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This work presents all-solid-state electrochromic devices based on TiO2 and Sn-doped NiO. The main idea of this work is the use of hydroxide ion-based instead of typical Li+ ions. The authors confirmed that the performance of the hydroxide ion-based device greatly depends on one of critical processes, namely, UV/O3 treatment. However, this work contains some unclear contents to be further studied during revision. All comments below must be updated correctly.

  1. The authors described in results that “By the addition of Sn, such an oxidization process becomes more pronounced, causing an increase in the transmittance modulation”. This description is true but the references for this claim should include recent key contributions such as Journal of Science-Advanced Materials and Devices, 6 (2021) 494-500. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsamd.2021.06.001).
  2. For solution processes, the performance of electrochromic devices may be affected by residual water at the interfaces of both NiO/SnO2 and SnO2/TiO2. In addition to the authors’ references, the role of water on the electrochromic and electrochemical properties of nickel oxide electrodes in electrochromic pseudocapacitors have been demonstrated in the very recent publication ( Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 168 (2021) 113502. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ac3527)).
  3. I recommend the authors to provide some data and discussion on electrochemical or optical cycle stability of the all-solid-state electrochromic devices. Then, the direct comparison regarding the stability between hydroxide ion-based and Li+-containing electrolytes becomes possible.
  4. The authors marked the colored/bleached response time on the corresponding curves in the revised version of the manuscript, such as Figure 11(b) and Figure 14(b). What is the basis?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. We are grateful to the reviewer whose comments have helped us a lot in improving the quality of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

To Author

all observations have been made, the paper is accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors well-addressed all comments of the reviewers. This version is now ready to be published in Coatings.