Effects of Sintering Temperature on MoO_x Target and Film

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the enclosed file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

1. Please mention what substrate was used to deposit MoOx film.

Answer: The substrate was sodium–calcium glass.

2. Please define TCO.

Answer: TCO is defined in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, OLED is also defined.

3. Please explain what is “narrow peak structure” in the following sentence. Fig. 4d presents a similar interface to Fig. 4c, while a narrow peak structure is developed resulting in the asymmetric film.

Answer: As shown in Fig.4d, it shows a flat interface but small and narrow peaks are observed. The SEM picture is revised.

4. Please fix typos in MoO3, MoO2 etc. Do so throughout the article.

Answer: These typos are corrected in the revised manuscript.

5. Fix the grammar related error in “The four-probe needle tester used to the resistivity (ρ) of thin films….”

Answer: The grammar related error is corrected in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, the grammar is checked throughout the revised manuscript.

6. In the reaction equations (1-4), please mention what is L.

Answer: L represents a liquid phase.

7. Keep all the variables in italics.

Answer: All the variables are revised using italics.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Effects of sintering temperature on MoOx target and film" by Xianjie Zhou , Hanqing Xiong and Jiwen Xu shows the effects of different sintering temperatures of sputtering targets on the spettered films. The investigation on the produced films was perfomed on the morphological properties as well on the electrical and optical properties. The paper is well written and consistend. 

I would suggest the publication after some minor correction: 

 

1) should be improved the explaination of the differences between the set value for the thickness and the real measured thickness of the films

 

2) in the cross section SEM images (FIG 4) the thicknesses values are very difficult to read. Please improve it

Author Response

1) should be improved the explaination of the differences between the set value for the thickness and the real measured thickness of the films

 Answer: The thickness uniformity is further explained as following:

Generally, the thickness of sputtered film is related to the distance between target and substrate, sputtering power and working pressure, etc. In this work, the technological parameters are set. By comparing the thickness uniformity of sputtered films, the film-forming property is evaluated. Thus, the inhomogeneities of MoO_x cause the confusion of electromagnetic fields and the uneven distribution of plasma density. Finally, it leads to the non-uniform deposition of target atoms during the uneven sputtering process.

2) in the cross section SEM images (FIG 4) the thicknesses values are very difficult to read. Please improve it

Answer: Fig.4 is improved for the clearer values of thickness.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript of Zhou et al. evaluates the rffects of sintering temperature on the MoOx target on the quality of the sputtered film. The manuscript is well structured and the experimental data supports the authors' conclusions. There are however some minor corrections which need to made, as mentioned below.

1. The data supports the authors conclusion. However, the quality of the figures can be improved in order to increase readers understanding and distinguishing of the data. For example: a) in Fig 1, the symbol for the MO₂ state in the XRD graph is so small, the peaks it marks cannot be properly identified. b) Fig 2 - authors can rearrange it on two columns and two rows for a better arrangemnet as for Figure 3. c) Fig 3 c - is the picture as such, due to the surface being smooth or because of the focus? Please see the two small dark spot in right side upper corner (edge of photo) - these also looks blurry, therefore the question with respect to the focus. d) Fig 4 - same comment for the arrangement as for Fig 2. Also the text for the measured thickness has to be improved (it is blurry and difficult to read). 

2. The conclusion can provide more detail than in the current form

3. Minor English corrections/mispelling have to be made throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

1. The data supports the authors conclusion. However, the quality of the figures can be improved in order to increase readers understanding and distinguishing of the data. For example: a) in Fig 1, the symbol for the MO₂state in the XRD graph is so small, the peaks it marks cannot be properly identified. b) Fig 2 - authors can rearrange it on two columns and two rows for a better arrangemnet as for Figure 3. c) Fig 3 c - is the picture as such, due to the surface being smooth or because of the focus? Please see the two small dark spot in right side upper corner (edge of photo) - these also looks blurry, therefore the question with respect to the focus. d) Fig 4 - same comment for the arrangement as for Fig 2. Also the text for the measured thickness has to be improved (it is blurry and difficult to read). 

Answer: The symbol for the MO₂ is increased. b) Fig. 2 are rearranged. c) Fig. 3c show a real effect, using the same digital camera as Fig.3a, b and d. d) Fig. 4 are rearranged, the text for the measured thickness is improved.

 

2. The conclusion can provide more detail than in the current form

Answer: The conclusion is improved as following:

 MoO_x target exhibits good sinterability and crystallization behavior at 1000 ℃, and has clear crystal structure, denser grains and higher density. The MoO_x target sintered at 1000 ℃ has a good film-forming property, forming a smooth interface with uniform thickness, and the thick is much closer the set value 45 nm. The sputtered film using the 1000 ℃ sintered MoO_x target has smaller resistivity, and higher reflectivity and transmittance value, compared with other targets sintered at 800 ℃, 900 ℃ and 1100 ℃. Further, the sintered MoO_x target at 1000 ℃ is more suitable for preparing the MoO_x film of new touch panel and narrow frame LCD device.

 

3. Minor English corrections/mispelling have to be made throughout the manuscript.

Answer: The corrections/mispelling are checked and corrected in the revised manuscript.