Characterization and Growth of TiO2/ZnO on PTFE Substrates at Different Volumetric Ratios Using Chemical Bath Deposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: coatings-2165866
General comments:
In this manuscript entitled "Characterization and Growth of TiO2/ZnO on PTFE Substrates at Different Volumetric Ratios Using Chemical Bath Deposition", the authors have reported the synthesis of Ti:TiO2/ZnO nanocomposites by heat treatment using the chemical bath deposition (CBD) method. The authors claimed that the heterostructure nanocomposites grown on PTFE substrates are highly promising TF for flexible electronics. The work is not adequate in the current form. The comments may be useful for the improvement of the manuscript. Minor revisions are needed to make the work acceptable.
1. Comment:
Start the abstract by a short introduction of the current problem(s) and the solution, based on the current study, in one or two lines.
2. Comment:
TiO2/ZnO thin films (TFs) were successfully grown by combining volumetric mixtures of TiO2 and ZnO at ratios of 1:7, 1:3, 3:5, and 1:1. There is no symmetry in ratios. Why the authors chosen these ratios.
3. Comment:
In the current state, there are some typographical errors. The font size is not same (Line 95)
4. Comment:
Write the grade and purity of chemicals used in synthesis process.
5. Comment:
Materials and chemicals sub-section must be separate, it is missing.
6. Comment:
To determine the surface morphology of TF AFM should be used.
7. Comment:
Figures 2 are with very low quality, must be revised and replaced with good quality Figures.
8. Comment:
EDX spectrum must be provided for the identification of elements, only table is not enough.
9. Comment:
It is better to use proper names instead of a,b,c and d, it is confusing.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors should include the following missing information in the paper:
Provide the mechanism of formation of the nanocomposites.
Explain better why the samples include the label Ti:TiO, it is not clear from the synthesis description.
Include the thickness of the samples.
Discuss about the choice of indirect band gap transitions for the materials because ZnO has been reported in literature as a direct band gap semiconductor.
Author Response
Please see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
coatings-2165866
This manuscript presents a preparation of TiO2/ZnO on PTFE Substrates by chemical bath deposition method. Authors claim this method improves photocatalytic ZnO properties and combines the integration of TiO2 to form a composite material. They used many characterizations method such as FTIR, XRD, and … to show synthesized composites' physical, structural, and optical characteristics. Although the presented manuscript has a lot of data, it is mostly a review of an experimental laboratory report. However, it's failed to find new contributions in the field. No new material/process/ properties/mechanism were found in this manuscript. The results are not outstanding. The discussion is quite simple. Therefore, I can't recommend it for publication in a high-impact journal like coating.
Additional comments:
1- Please improve the English grammar and writing skills for this paper.
2- Your abstract didn’t begin with a brief but precise statement of the problem or issue only it has a description of the research. in addition, you should add the significant findings, and the conclusions reached to your abstract.
3- Use a unique font and size in your manuscript. first paragraph of page 3 has different font size.
4- In annealing process, add the atmospheric condition of furnace.
5- What do you mean by the "carefully" in line 113? Have you used any special conditions or techniques? Please explain in detail.
6- The morphology of the homoepitaxial and heteroepitaxial sample shown in Fig.2 seems to be in the form of nanowires, while the samples synthesized by the chemical deposition method described by the author in the experimental. How can the author further obtain such arrays of nanowires? Additionally, the cross-sectional morphology of the sample should be given.
7- The scale bar in figure 2 is unclear.
8- Is your XRD obtained pattern matches well with the standard JCPDS?
9- The extrapolation lines in fig5 seem a bit arbitrarily chosen. To which part of the curve do you fit this?
10- You may refer to DOI: 10.1088/1361-6528/abfd54 for some of your peaks according to the Ti bond in figure 6.
11- What was the reason for applying +3 V bias voltage in current measuring? According to Table 5, most of the researchers choose 5V.
12- In the figure, the current-voltage curves for sample a look linear. What is the reason?
Author Response
Please see the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author addresses my all comments and modified the manuscript accordingly. But my main concern about the novelty of the research still remains. It is necessary to clearly indicate the novelty of this paper with more details (new material/process/ properties/mechanism or maybe Improved laboratory results in comparison) in the introductory section.
Author Response
Please see the attached response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
