A Preparation Method for Improving the Thermal Conductivity of Graphene Film
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript ” A preparation method for improving the thermal conductivity of graphene film “ by Xia Zhao, Xin Jia presents a kind of a novel method to enhance the thermal conductivity of graphene composite films by incorporating carbon-rich molecules (CRMs) during synthesis. The use of CRMs as an external carbon source to repair graphene defects is innovative and distinct from prior methods (e.g., plasma treatment, polymer composites). The authors propose that CRMs repair structural defects in graphene oxide (GO) films, improving crystallinity and reducing phonon scattering. The comprehensive characterization (SEM, Raman, XRD) of structural improvements of the graphene films is also provided.
Experimental results demonstrate a thermal conductivity increase from 598.74 W/(m·K) to 704.27 W/(m·K) with 0.15% CRM addition. It addresses a critical challenge in graphene technology: balancing both the high thermal and electrical conductivity with scalable, eco-friendly production.
Moreover, the practical application tests in automotive seats highlight faster heating and more uniform temperature distribution compared to traditional resistance wire seats. While the study offers promising insights into defect mitigation and industrial applications, several methodological and analytical gaps require addressing to strengthen its scientific rigor. Therefore, I think major revision is required prior to reconsideration for publication.
Notes:
1) A brief discussion on the possible role of citric acid and urea as precursors in defect repair and environmental impact of hydrothermal CRM synthesis and graphitization is desirable.
2) The choice of CRMs concentration seems to be arbitrary. Moreover, testing a broader range (e.g., 0.05–0.5%) would clarify concentration-dependent effects. Could you also provide, for example, a molecular dynamics simulation to explain CRM aggregation effects at >0.15% concentrations.
3) No data on CRM stability or interaction with graphene at extreme temperatures is provided. Scalability and energy efficiency concerns are unaddressed.
4) While talking about the efficiency improvement the more precise data Analysis needs to be presented: absence of error bars, standard deviations, or statistical tests (e.g., t-tests) would undermines reliability.
5) Claims about "continuous channels" (e.g. Fig. 2c) improving thermal transport remain speculative. A deeper discussion connecting SEM/Raman results to phonon dynamics is needed.
Elaborate on how reduced interlayer spacing (Fig. 3b) minimizes phonon scattering.
6) Could you quantify automotive seat performance metrics (e.g., time to reach 50°C, energy efficiency vs. resistance wire seats).? Did take into account any mechanical characteristics of CRM graphene films before making strong prediction for their practical use? Is it essential or not? The choice of automotive seat for single application of graphene films with improved thermal conductivity looks quite questionable and conditional.
7) Conclusion part is somehow absent that looks unacceptable, to my mind.
Some presentation errors:
- Standardize terms (e.g., replace "carbon-rich factor" with "carbon-rich molecules").
- Lines 272-275 have the same meaning and form.
- The font in the list of references differs for different links.
Author Response
We have studied comments carefully and have tried our best to make correction according to the comments. In the revised manuscript, we have made some changes in accordance with the Reviewers’ comments. The corrections and changes, as an item-by-item response to Reviewers’ comments, were marked in red. We appreciate for the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, we hope that the revised version of the manuscript could acceptable for publication in your journal. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript proposed an interesting and new approach for the realization of highly conductive graphene films. The topic is of high industrial and academical interest and the state of the art i scorrectly reported. Overall, the work is well-organized and well-written. A solid experimental part is presented and procedures are well documented. At the end of the paper a real life application (heating seats) is proposed and tested, giving to the paper a strong industrial view. Conclusions should be improved to give more interest to the overall paper. I recommend some minor revisions:
- "The radiation properties of graphene films are also pro-21 posed to verify the validity of the above conclusions, and the results show that the graphene film with 0.15% CRMs has better heat dissipation performance, which can reduce 5 ℃compared with that of pure graphene film.", please write the result in term of percentage reduction.
- "Therefore, graphene is one of the most promising candidate thermal conductivity materials, and has great application potential in the efficient thermal management of high-power devices [9-10]." The sentence is valid but add some details about specific applications such as wire rods (i.e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-14042-4) or aluminum wires, or heat sinks.
- There is a typo in line 68.
- In Figure 1 there is an extra image.
- In line 132 please specify the SEM microscope.
- In Figure 2 a scale is mandatory.
- In Figure 5 error bars are mandatory to correctly analyse the impact of CRM quality scores on Thermal properties.
- Please rename section 4 as "Conclusions"
- The usage of bullet points in conclusions would help the readability of the paper.
- Add some quantitative results in the conclusions
- Add a sentence about future developments in the conclusions.
Author Response
We have studied comments carefully and have tried our best to make correction according to the comments. In the revised manuscript, we have made some changes in accordance with the Reviewers’ comments. The corrections and changes, as an item-by-item response to Reviewers’ comments, were marked in purple. We appreciate for the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, we hope that the revised version of the manuscript could acceptable for publication in your journal. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for interesting comments! The work can be accepted for publication in the revised form but after minor revision according to notes below.
The important errors that need to be checked and fixed:
1) Fig.3 XRD pictures, X axis should be " theta-2theta scans"
2) Fig. 4 "Raman shift (cm-1)" instead of "Roman shift/cm-1"
3) the choice of 0C as an ambient temperature (instead of room T) I would like to be explained too in the text
4) In summary, I would start from main physical results of the work (about growth and properties of CRM-reached graphene etc.) and then finalise with applied applications and prospects.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are few grammatical errors. The text contains missing words and probably disrupted logical connections.
Author Response
We have studied comments carefully and have tried our best to make correction according to the comments. In the revised manuscript, we have made some changes in accordance with the Reviewers’ comments. The corrections and changes, as an item-by-item response to Reviewers’ comments, were marked in red. We appreciate for the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, we hope that the revised version of the manuscript could acceptable for publication in your journal. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
