Fabrication of Thermally Stable Heat-Shielding Coated Glass for Solar Glazing via Direct Calcination in Air
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this work, the authors studied a thermal stable heat-shielding coated glass for solar glazing simply via direct calcinating the Ce, Sb co-doped SnO2 nanoparticles with polysilazanes (PSZs) coatings in the air. Though the manuscript is interesting, it currently shows some scientific flaws that need to be addressed before its publication.
1. The introduction section is not well organized. It should be more specific and must have recent developments in the field. Most of the provided references are outdated.
2. In sections 2.1 to 2.6, the majority of the statements are without references which restricts the reproducibility of this work. The authors should provide references if the method is not new.
3. Equations are also without references.
4. Figure 3 resolution is very poor. High-resolution images should be provided. Figure caption is also very simple, it should be revised.
5. In Figure 3c, the authors should add an extended discussion regarding peak shifts.
6. In Figure 4, the authors efficiently added the results in the text part but they didn’t provide the extended discussion related to obtained results.
7. Figure 5 b and c captions are non-readable.
8. The conclusion part is generic, key outcomes and importance need to be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents the preparation and properties of the glass with the coating made of Ce, Sb co-doped SnO2 and polysilazanes calcinated in air. The coating is supposed to serve as a heat shielding in buidings and cars. The spectroscopic results show indeed that the maximum of transmittance of such coated glass, abbreviated as CeCG, is in the visible light range (almost 60% of total transmittance is in a visible range), while in the IR and UV ranges the transmission is smaller. It is also presented that an additional polysilazane layer makes the hard coating, which can protect the glass, abbreviated as CeCG-HH, from scratches. Both the CeCG and CeCG-HH samples are subjected to the accelerated aging test under the Xenon lamp and 50% humidity, where they retain relatively stable optical parameters during 350 hours.
The results shown in the paper are important in the context of energy saving and they also fit the scope of Coatings. The Authors not only show the detailed description of their samples, including various methods such as UV-Vis-IR spectroscopy, X-ray spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, hardness testing, scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, thermogravimetric analysis, but they also present the whole production line for the coated glass. However, some statements in the text (not in the Introduction, but in the later parts) are not supported by suitable references, which should be completed before acceptance. I have also some remarks regarding the interpretation of the X-ray diffraction data. My recommendation is the major revision.
line 63: "the Cs-doped WO3 can be oxidized to WO3" - This statement is unclear to me. Did the Authors mean the oxidation of the Cs dopant?
lines 172-173: Could the Authors add a reference for such definition of a cut-off rate? I did not manage to find it. I think that giving the % of transmittance in a considered wavelength range would be more informative. From Figure 5a, one can see that the transmittance in the IR range is larger than in the UV range.
line 206, Figure 1: There are additional peaks at 2theta = 27 and 47 deg in the Ce, Sb co-doped SnO2, which do not originate from SnO2. Could the Authors comment on them? Do these peaks originate from one of dopants?
lines 209-211, Figure 1: The peaks for the Sb-doped sample are wider than for the Cs, Sb-doped sample. Thus, the average size of particles should be smaller for the Sb-doped one, which is contrary to the results given by the Authors. I also suggest to mention in the text the 2theta position of the (110) peak.
lines 242-244: "It is known [...] by ozonosphere." - It would be good to add a reference here.
line 286: Does Ra stand for roughness?
line 304: "The CeCG coated glass was used for energy saving building and cars." - It was probably meant to be "can be used" or "was tested", because I understand this is a plan for the future.
lines 311-312: Something happened with a file there, I cannot see a part of the text.
line 316: Fig. 3 text box landed there.
lines 320-321: The reference for the low-E glass parameters should be given.
lines 348-359: Could the Authors add the references for the mentioned costs or explain how these costs were estimated?
Comments on the Quality of English Languageline 68 sliver -> silver
line 96 show -> shows
line 198 synthesize -> synthesized
line 251 demonstrate -> demonstrated
line 273 may attributed -> may be attributed
line 275 is -> are
line 300 increase -> increased
line 302 form -> formed
line 320 closed -> close
line 350 missing superscript in m2
line 358 has -> have
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorswell revised- accept
Author Response
To Reviewer 1
General comment: well revised- accept
Response: Thank you very much for your comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors addressed all my previous remarks. The analysis of the XRD data was extended and improved, and missing sources were added. I have only one remark now: in the new version of Figure 1, the peaks of SnO2 from the database are strongly shifted to higher 2theta angles, while they were in the correct position in the previous version. It was probably an error during editing the plot.
Author Response
To Reviewer 2
General comment: The Authors addressed all my previous remarks. The analysis of the XRD data was extended and improved, and missing sources were added.
Response: Thank you very much for the positive comment and constructive suggestion from this reviewer.
Specific comment 1: I have only one remark now: in the new version of Figure 1, the peaks of SnO2 from the database are strongly shifted to higher 2theta angles, while they were in the correct position in the previous version. It was probably an error during editing the plot.
Response 1: Thanks for valuable suggestions. We are very sorry for this mistake. The crystalline structure of SnO2 (JCPDS card no. 99-0024) have been revised. Now they are in the correct position.
The Figure 1 has been revised.
