Use of BODIPY and BORANIL Dyes to Improve Solar Conversion in the Fabrication of Organic Photovoltaic Cells Through the Co-Sensitization Method
, Rajendran Suresh Babu 1,* and Ana Lucia Ferreira de Barros 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the submitted manuscript, Leite, Babu, and colleagues report the utilization of BODIPY and BORANIL dyes to improve solar conversion in the fabrication of organic photovoltaic cells through the co-sensitization Method. Fluorescent dyes derived from boron complexes (BORANIL) and (BODIPY) were successfully synthesized and used as co-sensitizers in different volume percentage ratios, to verify the most effective concentration for photon capture through these sensitizers. The dyes were optically characterized using ultra violet visible spectroscopy (UV-VIS) and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR), analyzing through the optical performance of each hybrid combination of dyes. The morphology and surface roughness of the electrodes were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM), respectively. The dyes used in this work in the development of DSSCs can be considered good sensitizers, creating promising perspectives in the field of emerging solar cells. Therefore, this reviewer thinks it is a very good observation in the field of dye-sensitized solar cells. Overall, the manuscript is very well written and well explained. It will definitely attract the readers of “Colorants”. This reviewer supports the publication after addressing the following issues:
1) The authors are encouraged to cite some of the recent literature reports such as (i) J. Org. Chem. 2024, 89, 4702−4711. (ii) Journal of Photochemistry & Photobiology, A: Chemistry 2023, 442, 114781. (iii) ACS Omega 2022, 7, 3963−3977.
2) The authors are encouraged to provide the 13C NMR data and HRMS data for all of the new compounds.
3) Abstract and conclusion may be re-visited.
4) The authors may consider to revisit the schemes and write standard reaction conditions (such as equivalents, temperature, etc.) for better understanding, throughout the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response sheet
Journal Title: Colorants
Manuscript Title: Use of BODIPY and BORANIL Dyes to Improve Solar Conversion in the Fabrication of Organic Photovoltaic Cells Through the Co-Sensitization Method
Manuscript Number: colorants-3257384
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your valuable and helpful comments about our manuscript. We like to reply for the comments raised by the reviewer’s and editor in support of our work.
The corrections have been carried out in the Revised Manuscript and are highlighted in yellow color.
Reviewer #1: In the submitted manuscript, Leite, Babu, and colleagues report the utilization of BODIPY and BORANIL dyes to improve solar conversion in the fabrication of organic photovoltaic cells through the co-sensitization Method. Fluorescent dyes derived from boron complexes (BORANIL) and (BODIPY) were successfully synthesized and used as co-sensitizers in different volume percentage ratios, to verify the most effective concentration for photon capture through these sensitizers. The dyes were optically characterized using ultra violet visible spectroscopy (UV-VIS) and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR), analyzing through the optical performance of each hybrid combination of dyes. The morphology and surface roughness of the electrodes were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM), respectively. The dyes used in this work in the development of DSSCs can be considered good sensitizers, creating promising perspectives in the field of emerging solar cells. Therefore, this reviewer thinks it is a very good observation in the field of dye-sensitized solar cells. Overall, the manuscript is very well written and well explained. It will definitely attract the readers of “Colorants”. This reviewer supports the publication after addressing the following issues:
General Response: Thank you very much for the expert reviewer for their insightful comment which has assisted us to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Comment 1: The authors are encouraged to cite some of the recent literature reports such as (i) J. Org. Chem. 2024, 89, 4702−4711. (ii) Journal of Photochemistry & Photobiology, A: Chemistry 2023, 442, 114781. (iii) ACS Omega 2022, 7, 3963−3977.
Answer 1: We appreciate and comply with the referee’s comment. Giving due respect to the reviewer comment, we have included the above references in the appropriate places in the revised manuscript. Thank you.
Comment 2: The authors are encouraged to provide the 13C NMR data and HRMS data for all of the new compounds.
Answer 2: As suggested by the reviewer, the 13C NMR data and HRMS data for all the compounds were included the Appendix A section of the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: Abstract and conclusion may be re-visited.
Answer 3: As suggested by the reviewer, the abstract and conclusion were rewritten in the revised manuscript.
Comment 4: The authors may consider to revisit the schemes and write standard reaction conditions (such as equivalents, temperature, etc.) for better understanding, throughout the manuscript.
Answer 4: As suggested by the reviewer, the schemes in Figures 1 and 2 present the conditions suggested by the Reviewer (temperature, time, solvents, and reagents), more details can be found in the experimental description of the synthesis of the compounds.
It is hereby requested that the Revised Manuscript should be considered for publication in Colorants.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is of interest to broad readership
Author Response
Response sheet
Journal Title: Colorants
Manuscript Title: Use of BODIPY and BORANIL Dyes to Improve Solar Conversion in the Fabrication of Organic Photovoltaic Cells Through the Co-Sensitization Method
Manuscript Number: colorants-3257384
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your valuable and helpful comments about our manuscript. We like to reply for the comments raised by the reviewer’s and editor in support of our work.
The corrections have been carried out in the Revised Manuscript and are highlighted in yellow color.
Reviewer #2: The manuscript is of interest to broad readership.
General Response: Thank you very much for accepting our research article in the well-reputed Colorants Journal.
It is hereby requested that the Revised Manuscript should be considered for publication in Colorants.
-AUTHORS
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. I cannot find the definitions of "DG 1:1 and DG 3:1" and other ratios.
2. Follow the upper question, "Ten milligram of dyes samples were dispersed in 100 mL", how to define the "Ten milligram" for the mixed gel.
3. The dyes in the references 19-21 are different from yours, why you used these methods as the references?
4. The SEM images in Figure 7 are unclear, please change the clear images or edit them clearly. Please also index the scale in SEM images.
5. Please show where is the Pt contact electrode in Figure 7, I think EDS analyses for different elements are necessary. The electrode Pt electrode did not cover the whole area of the TiO2, then the measured efficiency, current, and voltage are correct?
6. The AFM images in Figure 8 do not match the SEM images in Figure 7.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Response sheet
Journal Title: Colorants
Manuscript Title: Use of BODIPY and BORANIL Dyes to Improve Solar Conversion in the Fabrication of Organic Photovoltaic Cells Through the Co-Sensitization Method
Manuscript Number: colorants-3257384
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your valuable and helpful comments about our manuscript. We like to reply for the comments raised by the reviewer’s and editor in support of our work.
The corrections have been carried out in the Revised Manuscript and are highlighted in yellow color.
Reviewer #3:
General Response: Thank you very much for the expert reviewer for their insightful comment which has assisted us to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Comment 1: I cannot find the definitions of "DG 1:1 and DG 3:1" and other ratios.
Answer 1: We appreciate and thank the reviewer comment. With due respect to the reviewer's comment, the definition of DG 1:1 and DG 3:1 and other ratios have been provided in Page 5 in the section 2.5 of the revised manuscript. Thank you.
Comment 2: Follow the upper question, "Ten milligram of dyes samples were dispersed in 100 mL", how to define the "Ten milligram" for the mixed gel.
Answer 2: We appreciate and comply with the referee’s comment. Giving due respect to the reviewer comment, initially, we have prepared each dye separately, after that the aliquots of each dye mixed the appropriate ratios (all prepared hybrid dyes were mixed at a volume percentage ratio 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1) as mentioned in the section 2.5 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: The dyes in the references 19-21 are different from yours, why you used these methods as the references?
Answer 3: We appreciate and comply with the referee’s comment. Giving due respect to the reviewer comment, References 19-21 were used for the synthesis of the compounds in this manuscript. Reference 19 presents the mechanochemical synthesis of BODIPY dyes successfully used by our group in reference 20 and in this work. Reference 21 presents the iodination reaction at the b-pyrrole position used in this work.
Comment 4: The SEM images in Figure 7 are unclear, please change the clear images or edit them clearly. Please also index the scale in SEM images.
Answer 4: We appreciate and comply with the referee’s comment. Giving due respect to the reviewer comment, in our institution we don’t have the facility of scanning electron microscope. Generally, we send samples to the other universities to analyze the physicochemical characterization. Normally it will take two months to analyze the particular studies. Hence, we are unable to do the SEM analysis in short period of time. We apologize for not able to provide the new SEM image of reviewer requested.
Comment 5: Please show where is the Pt contact electrode in Figure 7, I think EDS analyses for different elements are necessary. The electrode Pt electrode did not cover the whole area of the TiO2, then the measured efficiency, current, and voltage are correct?.
Answer 5: We appreciate and comply with the referee’s comment. Giving due respect to the reviewer comment, the higher magnification (x50,000) of Pt cathode were showed in Fig. 7b. In our institution we don’t have the facility of SEM and Energy dispersive X-ray analysis. Generally, we send samples to the other universities to analyze the physicochemical characterization. Normally it will take two months to analyze the particular studies. Hence, we are unable to do the SEM and EDS analysis. We apologize for not able to provide the EDS of reviewer requested.
Comment 6: The AFM images in Figure 8 do not match the SEM images in Figure 7.
Answer 6: We appreciate and comply with the referee’s comment. Thank you for your observation regarding the AFM images in Figure 8 and the SEM images in Figure 7. The apparent discrepancy arises due to the inherent differences in the imaging techniques and the scales at which these images were taken. AFM provides topographical information at the nanometer scale, offering a highly localized and detailed view of the surface roughness and texture. In contrast, SEM focuses more on the broader surface morphology, capturing structural features with higher depth of field and at different magnifications. The images were chosen to complement each other, highlighting different aspects of the samples surface characteristics. The features observed in the AFM images may not directly align with those in the SEM images due to differences in resolution, scale, and the specific areas of the sample analyzed.
Comment 7: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Answer 7: We appreciate and comply with the referee comment. Giving due respect to the reviewer comment, the English correction was performed with the help of native English teachers.
It is hereby requested that the Revised Manuscript should be considered for publication inColorants.
-AUTHORS
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
