Carbon Nanotube Coatings’ Role in Transparency, Mechanical Hardness, and Wetting Angle Increase

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title presents the core of the paper.

Abstract is well presented and understood. 

Intorduction is well and clearly presented.

Materials and Methods are presented. Reader does not get an insight on how the experiment was done.

Results are clearly presented and well understood. 

Conclusion is presented and sums up the paper findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thanks a lot for your useful and kind comments!

Начало формы

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title presents the core of the paper.

Abstract is well presented and understood. 

Intorduction is well and clearly presented.

Materials and Methods are presented. Reader does not get an insight on how the experiment was done.

Results are clearly presented and well understood. 

Conclusion is presented and sums up the paper findings.

My answers:

Part added about the short presentation of the experimental set-up is collared with yellow.

Moreover, please see the parts added and collared with green and blue. I hope that now it will be good for readers.

 

Best Regards,

Natalia Kamanina

=======================================

Natalia V. Kamanina (Prof., Dr.Sci., PhD)

Head of the lab for Photophysics of media with nanoobjects

Vavilov State Optical Institute

Kadetskaya Liniya V.O., dom.5, korpus 2,

St.- Petersburg, 199053, Russia

Professor of the St.-Petersburg Electrotechnical University (“LETI”),

Part-time Leading Researcher at Nuclear Physics Institute (Gatchina)

Job phone: +7 (812) 327-00-95

Fax: +7 (812) 331-75-58 (for N.V.Kamanina)

e-mail:  nvkamanina@mail.ru

Lab_cite: sites.google.com/view/photophysics-lab

https://publons.com/researcher/1696479/natalia-kamanina/

https://sciprofiles.com/news-feed

http://rusnor.org/network/webinars/10203.htm

http://www.npkgoi.ru/?module=articles&c=profil&b=7

http://www.nanometer.ru/2007/08/09/liquid_crystal_3905.html

http://www.eltech.ru/ru/fakultety/fakultet-elektroniki/sostav-fakulteta/kafedra-kvantovoy-elektroniki-i-optiko-elektronnyh-priborov/sostav-kafedry

=======================================

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

In this paper, the advantage of the laser oriented deposition technique is shortly shown in order to predict and establish the drastic main materials parameters change via carbon nanotubes incorporation.

 

Here are the suggestions before it could be accepted.

 

1. The literature should be updated, more literature should be in recent three years.

 

2. In the introduction, the disadvantages of the references should be summarized clearly to emphasize the importance of this work.

 

3. In the conclusion, the future research directions should be added.

 

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer!

 

Thanks a lot for your useful comments! The parts added or changed are collared with yellow or green.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 In this paper, the advantage of the laser oriented deposition technique is shortly shown in order to predict and establish the drastic main materials parameters change via carbon nanotubes incorporation.

 Here are the suggestions before it could be accepted.

 

1. The literature should be updated, more literature should be in recent three years.

 

2. In the introduction, the disadvantages of the references should be summarized clearly to emphasize the importance of this work.

 

3. In the conclusion, the future research directions should be added.

 My comments are here:

Thanks a lot!

I have added 10 papers published recently and improve some parts including the conclusion one.

Some parts in the text body have been added and collared with yellow, green or blue.

I hope that now more explanation has been done.

Thank a lot once again.

Best Regards,

Natalia Kamanina

=======================================

Natalia V. Kamanina (Prof., Dr.Sci., PhD)

Head of the lab for Photophysics of media with nanoobjects

Vavilov State Optical Institute

Kadetskaya Liniya V.O., dom.5, korpus 2,

St.- Petersburg, 199053, Russia

Professor of the St.-Petersburg Electrotechnical University (“LETI”),

Part-time Leading Researcher at Nuclear Physics Institute (Gatchina)

Job phone: +7 (812) 327-00-95

Fax: +7 (812) 331-75-58 (for N.V.Kamanina)

e-mail:  nvkamanina@mail.ru

Lab_cite: sites.google.com/view/photophysics-lab

https://publons.com/researcher/1696479/natalia-kamanina/

https://sciprofiles.com/news-feed

http://rusnor.org/network/webinars/10203.htm

http://www.npkgoi.ru/?module=articles&c=profil&b=7

http://www.nanometer.ru/2007/08/09/liquid_crystal_3905.html

http://www.eltech.ru/ru/fakultety/fakultet-elektroniki/sostav-fakulteta/kafedra-kvantovoy-elektroniki-i-optiko-elektronnyh-priborov/sostav-kafedry

=======================================

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments:

The article is a concept paper with an interesting topic and good experimental results. However, it benefits from a revision according to the following comments:

Since it is a concept paper, from the definition, the reader needs to find the following information in the paper: the encouragement of the work, potential application, or expected fundamental fundings to answer 1. why the author selects CNTs; 2. why LOD is chosen for the deposition of CNTs; 3. which evidence in the literature supports the appropriateness and applicability of the proposed opinion; 4. which potential application or unique feature makes the proposal an innovative idea. Also, a research plan for the future is missed in the paper. All these parts are partially addressed in the manuscript. However, my main recommendation to the author is to make a rearrangement, modification, and extension of the paper to address the above points.

Accordingly, the following modifications are recommended:

(1)    Abstract: lines 11-19, it is highly recommended to reformulate the abstract. For example, in line 14, please write examples of the characteristics you are searching for in the present paper; line 15, give a list of features expected to get improved by adding CNT; lines 17-19: provide more details about your research plan and method, and also your current results which support the idea.

(2)    Keywords: lines 20-21, usually 3-5 keywords are used in the papers. I suggest the following selection of keywords: carbon nanotubes; laser-oriented deposition; transparency; mechanical properties; wetting angle.

(3)    Introduction: lines 24-54, please modify the introduction through the points mentioned above to give more indicative details about the issue that the paper is concerned to solve, the reasons for selecting the proposed solution, and previous results from the literature. For example, the first paragraph, lines 24-37, can be reformulated as follows: a short description of the encouragement of the work;  introducing CNTs as a proposed solution with a brief history: the author can use lines 24-27 after improvements to be more informative; CNTs unique features which encourage researchers to combine it with other materials: lines 32-37 can be helpful;  methods to prepare CNTs: by extending line 28; and, approaches to study CNTs, theoretical and experimental: lines 29-31 are helpful by some improvements.

Lines 38-52: it is needed to briefly the LOD method and discuss the reasons for selecting LOD for the deposition of CNTs in the second paragraph of the Introduction. Accordingly, it is recommended to delete the first sentence of the paragraph since it is far from scientific writing. A suggestion: the author should write a short introduction to the LOD technique. Then, improve lines 41-52 using the advantage of a solid literature review to extend the idea of the author on the use of LOD to make the desired change in the deposited CNTs, for example, lower deposition temperature and good surface texturing, compared to the other deposition techniques used in the literature; At the end of the second paragraph in the Introduction or in a separate paragraph, please extend lines 53-54 to give more information about what the reader will see in the following pages.

(4)    Materials and Methods: lines 56-71: First, please write the details of the materials, substrates, and instruments used for the deposition. Second, besides lines 56-58, the details of the technique and experiment schemes used in the paper should be explained at the beginning of the Methods section. In addition, the use of one or two schematics can be very much helpful.

(5)    Results: lines 73-101, the results section is poorly written and needs a significant improvement and extension using the data presentation and description in more detail. My comments on the Results are as follows:

a.       line 76: please describe the data provided in the table in a more informative way.

b.       lines 82-84: there are many questions left in the interpretation of the contact angle data, like 1. how much is the thickness of the CNT layers on the substrates? 2. how much is the roughness of the layers? 3. do CNTs make a continuous layer on the surfaces? if yes, by considering the roughness of the surfaces, samples with a similar roughness should show a similar wetting behavior, simply a similar static contact angle, since the chemistry of the outer layer is the same (e.g. CNT). It is highly recommended to present data related to the roughness, and advancing and receding contact angles of all the samples before and after the deposition. Also, showing a plot of contact angle data can be more useful than a table to follow the changes in the wetting by depositing CNTs.

c.        lines 86-95: very much confusing description of the UV-Vis data! Having the spectrums as a plot can help the reader to get your points. Since the author is speaking the spectra for different substrates at different wavelength ranges, it is very difficult to follow the text. What's happening for the other ranges of the wavelength in each sample?

d.       lines 106-107: better to write the name of substrates used in this paper related to each of these categories.

(6)    Some minor verbal modifications are needed, for example: line 28, to “grow”; line 41, it “is” due; line 65, the “transmission” spectra; line 74, “demonstrates”; line 108, “main”.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thanks a lot for your recommendation and comments!

I have included some parts in the paper according your recommendation. The parts added or changed are collared with yellow, green or blue.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a concept paper with an interesting topic and good experimental results. However, it benefits from a revision according to the following comments:

Since it is a concept paper, from the definition, the reader needs to find the following information in the paper: the encouragement of the work, potential application, or expected fundamental fundings to answer 1. why the author selects CNTs; 2. why LOD is chosen for the deposition of CNTs; 3. which evidence in the literature supports the appropriateness and applicability of the proposed opinion; 4. which potential application or unique feature makes the proposal an innovative idea. Also, a research plan for the future is missed in the paper. All these parts are partially addressed in the manuscript. However, my main recommendation to the author is to make a rearrangement, modification, and extension of the paper to address the above points.

Accordingly, the following modifications are recommended:

(1)    Abstract: lines 11-19, it is highly recommended to reformulate the abstract. For example, in line 14, please write examples of the characteristics you are searching for in the present paper; line 15, give a list of features expected to get improved by adding CNT; lines 17-19: provide more details about your research plan and method, and also your current results which support the idea.

(2)    Keywords: lines 20-21, usually 3-5 keywords are used in the papers. I suggest the following selection of keywords: carbon nanotubes; laser-oriented deposition; transparency; mechanical properties; wetting angle.

(3)    Introduction: lines 24-54, please modify the introduction through the points mentioned above to give more indicative details about the issue that the paper is concerned to solve, the reasons for selecting the proposed solution, and previous results from the literature. For example, the first paragraph, lines 24-37, can be reformulated as follows: a short description of the encouragement of the work;  introducing CNTs as a proposed solution with a brief history: the author can use lines 24-27 after improvements to be more informative; CNTs unique features which encourage researchers to combine it with other materials: lines 32-37 can be helpful;  methods to prepare CNTs: by extending line 28; and, approaches to study CNTs, theoretical and experimental: lines 29-31 are helpful by some improvements.

Lines 38-52: it is needed to briefly the LOD method and discuss the reasons for selecting LOD for the deposition of CNTs in the second paragraph of the Introduction. Accordingly, it is recommended to delete the first sentence of the paragraph since it is far from scientific writing. A suggestion: the author should write a short introduction to the LOD technique. Then, improve lines 41-52 using the advantage of a solid literature review to extend the idea of the author on the use of LOD to make the desired change in the deposited CNTs, for example, lower deposition temperature and good surface texturing, compared to the other deposition techniques used in the literature; At the end of the second paragraph in the Introduction or in a separate paragraph, please extend lines 53-54 to give more information about what the reader will see in the following pages.

(4)    Materials and Methods: lines 56-71: First, please write the details of the materials, substrates, and instruments used for the deposition. Second, besides lines 56-58, the details of the technique and experiment schemes used in the paper should be explained at the beginning of the Methods section. In addition, the use of one or two schematics can be very much helpful.

(5)    Results: lines 73-101, the results section is poorly written and needs a significant improvement and extension using the data presentation and description in more detail. My comments on the Results are as follows:

1. line 76: please describe the data provided in the table in a more informative way.
2. lines 82-84: there are many questions left in the interpretation of the contact angle data, like 1. how much is the thickness of the CNT layers on the substrates? 2. how much is the roughness of the layers? 3. do CNTs make a continuous layer on the surfaces? if yes, by considering the roughness of the surfaces, samples with a similar roughness should show a similar wetting behavior, simply a similar static contact angle, since the chemistry of the outer layer is the same (e.g. CNT). It is highly recommended to present data related to the roughness, and advancing and receding contact angles of all the samples before and after the deposition. Also, showing a plot of contact angle data can be more useful than a table to follow the changes in the wetting by depositing CNTs.
3. lines 86-95: very much confusing description of the UV-Vis data! Having the spectrums as a plot can help the reader to get your points. Since the author is speaking the spectra for different substrates at different wavelength ranges, it is very difficult to follow the text. What's happening for the other ranges of the wavelength in each sample?
4. lines 106-107: better to write the name of substrates used in this paper related to each of these categories.

(6)    Some minor verbal modifications are needed, for example: line 28, to “grow”; line 41, it “is” due; line 65, the “transmission” spectra; line 74, “demonstrates”; line 108, “main”.

 

 My comments are here:

1)-2). Thank you! I have change and improve the abstract and correct the keywords. These parts are collared with blue.

3). Please see some added papers in the Conclusion part. Some idea, shown in that is written. I have added 10 papers written recently and included it in the paper. This part is collared with green.

4). Thank you! I have added shortly the set-up. This Figure 1 is collared with yellow.

5). Good analysis, thanks a lot!!! I have added the data on roughness for some material, added the data about indenter, etc. Table 1 is corrected, Table 3 is added.

About spectra. Sorry, let me to save (keep) the data shown. We have treated the materials using the unique their properties at the specific wavelength. But your remark is useful. I have added some sentence in the Conclusion part, that the broader wavelength should be considered for all materials.  

Thank you very much for your comments! It permits to me to form other questions for my team research!

Best Regards,

Natalia Kamanina

=======================================

Natalia V. Kamanina (Prof., Dr.Sci., PhD)

Head of the lab for Photophysics of media with nanoobjects

Vavilov State Optical Institute

Kadetskaya Liniya V.O., dom.5, korpus 2,

St.- Petersburg, 199053, Russia

Professor of the St.-Petersburg Electrotechnical University (“LETI”),

Part-time Leading Researcher at Nuclear Physics Institute (Gatchina)

Job phone: +7 (812) 327-00-95

Fax: +7 (812) 331-75-58 (for N.V.Kamanina)

e-mail:  nvkamanina@mail.ru

Lab_cite: sites.google.com/view/photophysics-lab

https://publons.com/researcher/1696479/natalia-kamanina/

https://sciprofiles.com/news-feed

http://rusnor.org/network/webinars/10203.htm

http://www.npkgoi.ru/?module=articles&c=profil&b=7

http://www.nanometer.ru/2007/08/09/liquid_crystal_3905.html

http://www.eltech.ru/ru/fakultety/fakultet-elektroniki/sostav-fakulteta/kafedra-kvantovoy-elektroniki-i-optiko-elektronnyh-priborov/sostav-kafedry

=======================================

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf