Optimization of Bulk Heterojunction Organic Photovoltaics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper tries to provide a scientific understanding on the optimization of bulk heterojunction organic Photovoltaic devices by providing some well-known systems, i.e. P3HT and PEDOT investigating the effects of different atmosphere and annealing conditions. I am afraid the results seem obvious, and thus I personally cannot find any novelty worth publication in this journal, unless a more thorough materials' characterization is carried out. I hope authors can resubmit a more scientifically-sound version of the manuscript.

The English used in the manuscript need some corrections.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the comments. This manuscript has undergone extensive revision to make more scientifically sound. We are looking forward to receiving further feedback on our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript, the authors performed optimization process of lab benchmarking OPV fabrication. I commend the authors for their work and I recommend the manuscript published with the following minor revisions. Please check:

1. The full name of “OPV” should be given when it first appears in main text.

2. How does the authors evaluate the PCE efficiency?

3. What is the effect of humidity on PCE efficiency?

4. Some relative references are suggested，such as: Advanced Materials Interfaces, 2023, 10(2): 2201856; Materials Futures, 2022, 1(4): 045101; Rare Metals, 2022, 41(9): 3078-3085.

In the manuscript, the authors performed optimization process of lab benchmarking OPV fabrication. I commend the authors for their work and I recommend the manuscript published with the following minor revisions. Please check:

1. The full name of “OPV” should be given when it first appears in main text.

2. How does the authors evaluate the PCE efficiency?

3. What is the effect of humidity on PCE efficiency?

4. Some relative references are suggested，such as: Advanced Materials Interfaces, 2023, 10(2): 2201856; Materials Futures, 2022, 1(4): 045101; Rare Metals, 2022, 41(9): 3078-3085.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion, now we have added the following references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The P3HT:PCBM system is a well known study for OPV. This manuscript should state more clearly what's the key point of this research. Author should state what's the difference in PEDOT-PH1000, and PEDOT-AI 4083. How this two can result in different device performance ?

2. I suggest author can cite these two OPV articles in introduction. (Materials Today 2012, 15 (12), 554-562; ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology 2021, 10, 075003)

3. Most study reported the using of PCBM is more than P3HT. Why this research presented P3HT:PCBM=1:0.8 ? PCBM is less than P3HT.  

4. I suggest Fig 1~4 can be replaced by bot plots, showing more device statistics results.

5. Figure S1 can be placed in the manuscript.

6. In Fig 1 and 2, "In the wet laboratory" and "clean room" can be modified to "air" and "nitrogen". That could help reader more understand what you want to present.

7. In Fig 5, Why did you show "No mask" device ? Any special meaning ?

8. Why reducing the device area could result lower device performance. Usually, larger area result poor device performance. 

 Quality of presentation can be improved.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion, now we have added the following references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I still cannot find a significant improvement in the revised manuscript. I would be eager to see a morphological characterization of the films (e.g. atomic force microscopy, XPS) and, also, a correlation to the observed functional properties which are studied more in detail. In addition, Figure 3 needs a careful revision, especially on the Y-axis label.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version is OK

English is O.K. may be improved next time.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf