Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, " Light-induced interfacial charge transport of In2O3/reduced graphene oxide/non-conjugated poloymers in a wide range of the light spectrum,"the paper is highly appropriate for the journal. Much of the data is original and relevant.

However, the paper requires major revisions before it can be accepted for publication.

We recommend that the authors review the following suggestions:

• In the Results and Discussion section, the manuscript lacks clear structure. I suggest that the author introduce sub-sections to make this part easier to read and understand.
• Authors should avoid using excessively long sentences.
• The experiment for graphene oxide should cite your work in reference 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.12.611 instead of reference 106.
• XRD pattern not clear, what is the acquisition time of the diffractogram?
• The author should provide more details about the UV–Vis experiment, including how the measurements were performed with the nanoparticles and how the issue of light diffusion was addressed.

 

In the end and to my opinion this paper can be accepted to be published in coatings after major revision

 

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your comments. We have revised it according to your comments. We have also provided reasonable explanations and engaged in discussions regarding certain issues.

Sincerely,
Xingfa Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents an interesting investigation on In₂O₃/rGO/non-conjugated polymer hybrids with broad-spectrum photoresponse and potential multifunctionality. The work is promising, but major revisions are required before it can be considered for publication.

*** The Introduction needs substantial improvement to establish a stronger link between In₂O₃-based nanocomposites, photoelectric conversion, and CO₂-related environmental and energy applications. Currently, the background is largely descriptive and lacks recent references connecting this research to modern CO₂ capture, photoreduction, and interface-tuned materials. Please here must add these references for improve your introduction, 
Hu, Y., Wang, Q., Hu, D., Zhang, Y., Furqan, M., & Lu, S. (2024). Experimental study on CO 2 capture by MEA/n-butanol/H 2 O phase change absorbent. Rsc Advances, 14(5), 3146-3157. Wang, Jie, et al. "Performance and mechanism of tetracycline removal by peroxymonosulfate-assisted double Z-scheme LaFeO3/g-C3N4/ZnO heterojunction under visible light drive." Environmental Technology & Innovation (2025): 104302. Teng, Lin, et al. "Computational fluid dynamics study of CO2 dispersion with phase change of water following the release of supercritical CO2 pipeline." Process Safety and Environmental Protection 154 (2021): 315-328. Li, Yong-Zhi, et al. "A moisture stable metal-organic framework for highly efficient CO2/N2, CO2/CH4 and CO2/CO separation." Chemical Engineering Journal 484 (2024): 149494. Shi, H., Pan, H., Cheng, Y., Lu, S., & Kang, P. (2021). Imine‐Nitrogen‐Doped Carbon Nanotubes for the Electrocatalytic Reduction of Flue Gas CO2. ChemElectroChem, 8(10), 1792-1797. Shijian, Lu, Zhao Dongya, and Zhu Quanmin. "CO2 absorber coupled with double pump CO2 capture technology for coal-fired flue gas." Energy Procedia 154 (2018): 163-170. Mao, Yuanhui, et al. "The Close Relationship Between Trace Elements (Cu, Fe, Zn, Se, Rb, Si, Cr, and V) and Alzheimer's Disease: Research Progress and Insights." Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology (2025): 127692. 

*** Please emphasize how your “non-conjugated polymer tunneling” mechanism differs from previously known In₂O₃/carbon hybrids and why PVA or dendrimers offer unique advantages in long-term charge retention and photoconductive reversibility.

*** Improve figure captions: describe measurement conditions (light power, bias, etc.).

*** Verify axis labels and units in photocurrent and strain response figures.

*** The English should be revised for clarity.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your comments. We have revised it according to your comments. We have also provided reasonable explanations and engaged in discussions regarding certain issues.

Sincerely,
Xingfa Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work submitted for review entitled Light-induced interfacial charge transport of In2O3/reduced graphene oxide/non-conjugated poloymers in a wide range of the  light spectrum seems to be very interesting topics but is not written with due care, as evidenced by the error in the title (poloymers). The quality of the drawings is very poor and needs improvement.

In my opinion, the presented work cannot be published because the quality of the presented results is very poor. Below is a detailed description of the deficiencies.

 

1. The introduction needs to be improved.

The introduction lists dozens of different In2O3 modifications. It would be better to collect these examples in a table and describe in the text the impact these modifications had on the properties of indium oxide. Simply listing these examples doesn't add anything new to the research. This isn't a review, and I believe the number of cited references is excessive. It would be better to reduce this number and describe the effects of the modifications by citing two or three papers. There's also no reference to the research results presented in the work, which is new compared to what has already been published.

2. Scheme 1. The structure of the electrodes in the study – must be improved.
3. Figure The representative SEM (scanning electron microscope) image of In2O3-rG (10)-PVA (10 232 mL) - The descriptions A, B, and C are almost invisible. There's no description of what's different about these photos. These photos don't indicate that the particles are 10 nm in size. EDS measurements would be helpful, showing the composition and distribution of the elements. This would explain where these lamellar and nanocubes come from.
4. Figure 2 shows the diffraction pattern obtained for the tested material, but the signal intensity is very low. The signal is highly noisy, and it is difficult to distinguish more than three peaks. The description provides values ​​for 13 angles with an accuracy of two decimal places. FTIR measurements for these materials would provide more structural information.
5. Figure 3 shows the Raman spectrum for the selected compound. The authors suggest that varying the PVA additive significantly affects the number of defects. It would be useful to show the spectra for materials with different PVA additives, as shown in the UV-Vis spectra. Comparing these spectra (especially the ID/IG ratio) will allow us to identify differences in the number of defects.
6. Figure 5 The photocurrent response shown in the graphs is of poor quality. This is especially true in Figure A, where it's unclear what the signal means. The values ​​are in the nA range and appear to be random noise rather than a material response. In Figure 5C, the photocurrent values ​​are in mA, and the noise is enormous. It doesn't show where the light is on and off. What does "visible light" mean? These measurements need to be repeated.
7. Figure 6. The noise in Figure 6A at about 1800 s, which is some kind of interference, looks very similar to the signal in Figure 5A, so this data is not reliable. Conclusions about photocurrent switching are based on this information.
8. The remaining photocurrents measurement results need to be repeated or better analysed. It is difficult to compare and draw conclusions when using different light powers at different wavelengths. Sometimes the figure shows two peaks, other times four. The entire section on generated photocurrents needs to be better analysed.
9. It is difficult to describe the mechanism solely based on the generated photocurrents. A better understanding of the electronic structure of these materials is necessary: ​​determining the bandgap width, the position of the conduction band, and the valence band. Impedance measurements in the dark and under illumination would also be helpful, providing information on the number of generated carriers and their lifetimes.

 

 

Title: poloymers

Line 65: taioring

Line 253, 255: cm-1

Line 256: sp2

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your comments. We have revised it according to your comments. We have also provided reasonable explanations and engaged in discussions regarding certain issues.

Sincerely,
Xingfa Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the synthesis and optoelectronic properties of a hybrid nanocomposite consisting of In₂O₃ nanoparticles, reduced graphene oxide (r-GO), and a non-conjugated polymer (PVA or dendrimers). The authors claim that the addition of the non-conjugated polymer serves to passivate defects and improve interfacial contact, enhancing the extraction of photogenerated charge carriers. The key findings include the conversion of negative photoconductivity (PPC) to stable positive photoconductivity, a broad spectral response from the visible to the near-infrared (NIR) region (up to 1064 nm), and the demonstration of multifunctionality, including strain sensing and application on flexible silk fiber substrates. A notable finding is the stable, zero-bias photocurrent response from a sample stored for over four years, suggesting a robust internal electric field. The core concept of using non-conjugated polymers for electronic interface modification is novel and promising. However, the manuscript suffers from significant weaknesses in its current form, including a critically vague methodology, poor-quality characterization data, and a confusing narrative structure. Therefore, I recommend Major Revision.

1-The introduction is excessively long and reads more like a review article on In₂O₃. The long lists of applications for gas sensors (lines 33-45) are distracting. The introduction should be heavily condensed to focus specifically on the challenges of In₂O₃-based photodetection, its limitations in the NIR, and the use of interface engineering to solve those problems.

2- In Section 2.5 ("Preparation of In2O3/reduced graphene oxide/PVA hybrid"): This section merely states that PVA solution was "added" to the In₂O₃/r-G and "stirred." It is completely unclear how this hybrid material is then used to create the final device. Is the resulting solution drop-cast onto the electrodes? Is the product filtered, dried, and then applied as a paste? This must be clarified.

3- Section 2.7 ("Photocurrent response"): The authors state that "Au gap electrodes on PET film and Ag fiber electrodes... on A4 printing paper" were used. It is not specified which electrode/substrate combination was used for which experiment. This information is essential for interpreting the results.

4- Silk Fiber Coating: The manuscript discusses coating the material on silk fibers (Figures 11-12), but the method for performing this coating is never described.

5- The XRD spectrum in Figure 2 is of exceptionally poor quality, with a very high noise level that obscures the peaks. While the authors have assigned indices, the signal-to-noise ratio is not convincing for a publication. This data should be re-collected or, at minimum, the authors must provide a strong justification for its inclusion in this state.

6-The Results and Discussion section is not structured logically. The paper introduces the core concept (In₂O₃/r-G + PVA), then jumps to applications (silk fiber, strain sensing), and then returns to fundamental material validation with the 4-year-old sample and the dendrimer experiments (Figs 14-19). This is confusing. 

7-Several figures are low-resolution and would benefit from being re-rendered. The labeling on Figure 13 (strain sensing) is particularly confusing; the arrows for "Applied force" and "Releasing force" in 13A appear to point to the incorrect phases of the cycle.

8- The authors state, "The intensity of D band is higher than that of G." While true, they should also briefly state why this is expected (i.e., it is characteristic of highly defected r-GO, which is consistent with the hydrothermal reduction method).

 

Author Response

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your comments. We have revised it according to your comments. We have also provided reasonable explanations and engaged in discussions regarding certain issues.

Sincerely,
Xingfa Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the paper can be accepted to be published in coatings  journal without any further revision 

Author Response

Dear Sir
Thank you for your work and the comments. 
Sincerely,
Xingfa Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept.

Author Response

Dear Sir
Thank you for your work and the comments. 
Sincerely,
Xingfa Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for responding to my comments. However, in my opinion, only minimal changes have been made to the manuscript. The entire section concerning the results of photocurrent measurements is unacceptable for publication. The results shown are of very poor quality. I understand that under certain conditions the signal is low and the noise is high, but the results shown should be comparable: the number of peaks should be the same, and the measurements should be performed under the same conditions. The points at which the light is on and off should also be clearly marked. The authors indicate that the number of photoinduced carriers is high or low without providing any experimental evidence. They write about charge tunneling based solely on a comparison of photocurrent values. There is no information on the electronic structure of the materials studied.

In my opinion, the work in its current form should not be published.

Author Response

Dear Sir

Thank you for your work and the comments. We have revised it according to the comments. Certain issues we feel are difficult to revise, and can only be addressed through reasonable explanation and discussion.

Sincerely,

Xingfa Ma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors fixed all comments and the manuscript can be accepted in the present form.