Design of a Low-Cost and High-Precision Measurement System Suitable for Organic Transistors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1) This paper talks about design of a low-cost and high-precision measurement system suitable for organic transistors. 2)  It introduces a novel, cost-effective, and portable setup for the high-precision characterization of organic field-effect transistors (OFETs), providing a feasible substitute for costly semiconductor parameter analyzers. The suggested system incorporates measurement, data processing, and graphical visualization capabilities, together with Bluetooth connectivity for local operation and Wi-Fi functionality for remote data monitoring. The device consists of a motherboard and specialized cards for low-current measurement, voltage measurement, and voltage generation, providing comprehensive OFET characterization, including transfer and output characteristics, in accordance with IEEE-1620 standards. The system can measure current from picoamperes to milliamperes, with voltage measurements supported by high input resistance (>100 MΩ) and a voltage generation range of -30 V to +30 V. This versatile and accessible approach greatly improves the opportunities for future OFET research and development. 3) This paper has potential. However, it requires a major revision. 4) The first 2 lines of the abstract should define a clear problem statement that why a high precision measurement is important for organic transistors.   5) The introduction section is the weakest in this work. This is due to the following comments.  6) What is the contribution of the paper ? It must be clearly mentioned in the introduction. So far, this elements is not obvious in the introduction. 7) What is the motivation of the paper ? It must be clearly mentioned in the introduction. So far, this elements is not obvious in the introduction. 8) What is the focus and potential of this work ? This element should also be added in the introduction. 9) What are the preceding affined articles in this work ? A tabular form should be represented as well that what contributions were made in those articles and what are their limitations. And what limitations are you targeting in this work ? or it is yet another paper? 10) Section 2 is named twice. Please correct it.  11) Since there is no mathematical representation made for this work, there should be a pseudo code before the measurements section. Pseudo codes are designed for practitioners to understand things smoothly. The variables of input and output are required to be defined in the tables. And then that defined language of variables are required to be used in the rest of the lines of each algorithm. Please follow the above steps accordingly. 12) In the measurement results section, what main-stream techniques are utilized for comparison ? If there are no techniques to compare, give a solid reason for your stance. The superiority of your proposed scheme shall be mentioned in the conclusion based on the outcome of comparison with other main stream techniques. 13) For a work talking about the high precision measurement system, low cost, and organic electronics, the role of energy management should be added in the introduction section which is improved to the high precision measurement route of this work. This will allow to widen the spectrum of audience while appreciating the organic electronics. Some suggested references in the energy storage and management domain are as follows: 1) `Energy storage technologies: An integrated survey of developments, global economical/environmental effects, optimal scheduling model, and sustainable adaption policies’ 2) `Organic thermoelectric materials for energy harvesting and temperature control’, and 3) `A solar-powered multi-functional portable charging device (SPMFPCD) with internet-of-things (IoT)-based real-time monitoring—An innovative scheme towards energy access and management’.  14) References literally require an overall. The format is not consistent. In some references, the page number is reflected at the end and in others, year is reflected in the end. Similarly, in some references, the title is italic. Also, in some, the first letter of the title of the paper is only capital. In others, all first letters of the titles of the paper are capital. Please visit the styling again and maintain consistency.

Author Response

The authors are thankful for valuable and inspiring comments and suggestions of the reviewer. The detail response follows:

Reviewer: The first 2 lines of the abstract should define a clear problem statement that why a high precision measurement is important for organic transistors. 

Authors: Thank you for the suggestion. The abstract was rewritten to follow this recommendation. Please see revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer:  What is the contribution of the paper ? It must be clearly mentioned in the introduction. So far, this elements is not obvious in the introduction.

Authors: Thank you for your valuable comment. The revised manuscript has a modified introduction section to increase the manuscript impact in the way you suggested. Please see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer: What is the motivation of the paper ? It must be clearly mentioned in the introduction. So far, this elements is not obvious in the introduction

Authors: Thank you for your valuable comment. The revised manuscript has a modified introduction section to make motivation more visible in the way you suggested. Please see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer:  What is the focus and potential of this work ? This element should also be added in the introduction.

Authors: Thank you for your inspiring comment. The revised manuscript has a modified introduction section to make research focus more visible in the way you suggested. Please see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer:  What are the preceding affined articles in this work ? A tabular form should be represented as well that what contributions were made in those articles and what are their limitations. And what limitations are you targeting in this work ? or it is yet another paper.

Authors: Thank you for your fruitful comment. The revised manuscript contains the table comparing the suggested measurement system with the commercially available systems. The detailed comparison of system performances is illustrating the capabilities of this system. Please see the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer: Since there is no mathematical representation made for this work, there should be a pseudo code before the measurements section. Pseudo codes are designed for practitioners to understand things smoothly. The variables of input and output are required to be defined in the tables. And then that defined language of variables are required to be used in the rest of the lines of each algorithm. Please follow the above steps accordingly. 

Authors: Thank you for this comment. The evolution diagram is included in the Supplemetary Information.

 

Reviewer:  In the measurement results section, what main-stream techniques are utilized for comparison

Authors: Since the measurement system is designed for organic field-effect transistors, the comparison is done using the evaluated device parameters. Please note that the measurement system is limited by the reproducibility of the measured data because of the trap states present in all organic electronics devices.

 

Reviewer: For a work talking about the high precision measurement system, low cost, and organic electronics, the role of energy management should be added in the introduction section which is improved to the high precision measurement route of this work. This will allow to widen the spectrum of audience while appreciating the organic electronics. Some suggested references in the energy storage and management domain are as follows: 1) `Energy storage technologies: An integrated survey of developments, global economical/environmental effects, optimal scheduling model, and sustainable adaption policies’ 2) `Organic thermoelectric materials for energy harvesting and temperature control’, and 3) `A solar-powered multi-functional portable charging device (SPMFPCD) with internet-of-things (IoT)-based real-time monitoring—An innovative scheme towards energy access and management’. 

Authors: Thank you for your comment. The energy management of the measurement system is not a crucial issue in this case. The battery system used for the power supply (i.e. the power bank) is used to suppress the noise coming from the power lines and improve the low-current measurement precision. As a result, we do not feel a need to discuss the low-power requirements of the measurement system. Nevertheless, appropriate comments were included in the modified manuscript.

 

Reviewer:  References literally require an overall. The format is not consistent. In some references, the page number is reflected at the end and in others, year is reflected in the end. Similarly, in some references, the title is italic. Also, in some, the first letter of the title of the paper is only capital. In others, all first letters of the titles of the paper are capital. Please visit the styling again and maintain consistency.

Authors: We apologise for some typos in the references. The whole manuscript (including references) was proofread to avoid mistakes like this.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The low-cost, portable OFET measurement system proposed in this article is a beneficial supplement to existing technology, especially for researchers who need to conduct OFET testing in different environments. This system provides an economically effective solution.

I recommend this work for publication in Electronics after minor revision. Please consider the following comments.

1、The clarity of charts and illustrations in the article could help readers to understand the content of the article. It is necessary to redraw Figure 1 to improve readability. The annotations on the image should be displayed more clearly.

2、The description and color scheme in Figure 2 still need to be carefully considered.

3、There is a missing letter in line 297, please recheck the spelling and grammar of this sentence.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. The detailed resposne follows:

Reviewer: 1. The clarity of charts and illustrations in the article could help readers to understand the content of the article. It is necessary to redraw Figure 1 to improve readability. The annotations on the image should be displayed more clearly.

Authors: We are thankful for your suggestion. Figure 1 was redrawn to be in a unified style with others. The anotation of all Figures was proofread to improve the quality.

 

Reviewer: 2. The description and color scheme in Figure 2 still need to be carefully considered.

Authors: We are grateful for the sharp-eyed review. We included a description of Figure 2 to improve the understanding.

 

Reviewer: 3. There is a missing letter in line 297, please recheck the spelling and grammar of this sentence.

Authors: We apologise for this typo. The whole manuscript was proofread once again to avoid mistakes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a measurement tool for recording the characteristics and extracting the parameters of organic transistors. It takes the form of a case study, but can also be seen as a product demonstration.

The structure of the article is in line with the expectations of scientific articles, with a few misprints and good English.

The Introduction section gives an adequate overview of the background to the work.

The quality of Figure 1 could be better. It would be worth separating Id and Ig into separate figures. The font is difficult to read, there are only two values on the right scale, it would be good to see at least the value for 0 A. The text says that it follows from the figure that the minimum current sensing limit should be 1 pA, and the maximum current limit should be 20 mA, but I don't see these. The highest Id is 120 uA, how does it follow that the limit should be 20 mA?

In Fig. 3 and fig. 4 are not referenced from the text.

LMP7721 and LTC6090 are both op.amps for the voltage measurement block. It would be nice to see schematic or block diagram level of their relationship.

The section numbering is wrong from Calibration to the end of the article:

2. Calibration of measurement System => 3. Calibration of the measurement System

3. Firmware => 4.

4. Software for evaluation organic transistor parameter => 5.

etc.

The section "3. Firmware" should be deleted or shortened considerably, as it would be more appropriate for an instruction manual than for a scientific article. E.g.:

"If the initialization of the measurement card fails, then the 229

program halts and displays an error message..." 

When comparing the results obtained with their own instrument and those obtained with the Keysight B1500A, they say:

"Obviously, the difference in the parameters' values is 284

insignificant since it is lower than the estimation error or reproducibility error (in the case 285

of effective charge carrier mobility)."

This should be justified in more detail, because the difference of 6% for VTHlin, 45% for SS and 10% for ulin seems to me to be quite large. Especially considering the "High-Precision" adjective in the title of the article.

297 his study => This study

The article describes the capabilities of a product and partly its construction. It may be useful for someone who is involved in the analysis of OFETs and needs a measuring device. The presentation is not detailed enough for other researchers to build their own work on it. Overall, the article may be suitable for publication if the editor deems it suitable for the journal, and provided the authors correct the errors indicated.

Author Response

We are thankful for your comments since it helps us to deliver better message to the Reader. The detail response follows:

Reviewer: The quality of Figure 1 could be better. It would be worth separating Id and Ig into separate figures. The font is difficult to read, there are only two values on the right scale, it would be good to see at least the value for 0 A.

Authors: Thank you for your kind suggestion. Figure 1 was redrawn to meet all your expectations. Please see revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer: The text says that it follows from the figure that the minimum current sensing limit should be 1 pA, and the maximum current limit should be 20 mA, but I don't see these. The highest Id is 120 uA, how does it follow that the limit should be 20 mA?

Authors: Thank you for your sharp-eyed review. Of course, the Reviewer is right that the investigated device does not reach so high current. On the other hand, the plotted device had 125 µm long channel, while some other devices fabricated using the shadow mask technique have a channel only 50 µm. It should be noted here that the devices with shorter channel lengths reach the highest output current in the range of several miliamps. As a result, the limit of 20 mA was estimated as suitable for organic field-effect transistor devices. Appropriate comment has been included in the revised manuscript. 

 

Reviewer: In Fig. 3 and fig. 4 are not referenced from the text.

Authors: We apologise for this mistake. The revised manuscript contains appropriate references in the text.

 

Reviewer: LMP7721 and LTC6090 are both op.amps for the voltage measurement block. It would be nice to see schematic or block diagram level of their relationship.

Authors: Thank you for your fruitfull comment. Due to its parameters, the LMP7721 is ideal for measuring current in a transimpedance circuit, and the LTC6090 is ideal for its parameters for measuring and generating high excitation voltages. The schematics of both operation amplifiers are included in the Supplementary Information.

 

Reviewer: The section numbering is wrong from Calibration to the end of the article

Authors: We apologise for this mistake. The section numbering was fixed. Please see revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer: The section "3. Firmware" should be deleted or shortened considerably, as it would be more appropriate for an instruction manual than for a scientific article. 

Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. Section Firmware was shortened, and the text was included in the Supplementary information.

 

Reviewer: When comparing the results obtained with their own instrument and those obtained with the Keysight B1500A, they say: "Obviously, the difference in the parameters' values is insignificant since it is lower than the estimation error or reproducibility error (in the case of effective charge carrier mobility)." This should be justified in more detail, because the difference of 6% for VTHlin, 45% for SS and 10% for ulin seems to me to be quite large.

Authors: The Reviewer is correct that the discrepancy between the estimated values is higher than expected for common inorganic devices. On the other hand, the organic field-effect transistors always exhibit a certain level of ireproducibility because of the trap states in the organic semicponductor. As a result, the charge trapping phenomenon has an impact on charge transport (parameters such as mobility or threshold voltage) and especially on the parameters such as subthreshold swing. The high precision of our electronic system stands for the precise measurement of low electric currents; however, the nature of the organic electronic devices cannot be suppressed. Appropriate comment was inlcuded in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer: 297 his study => This study

Authors: We apologise for this mistake. The whole manuscript was proofread once again to avoid mistakes like this one.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please include a quantitative comparison of performance metrics and prices between the proposed method and available commercial products.

2. Please provide a quantitative comparison of the proposed method with previous works and available commercial products in terms of sensitivity, bandwidth, and noise level.

3. Please specify the software used for the simulation mentioned in line 159, and include the simulation results.

4. Please explain how the values of the passive components are adjusted, as mentioned in line 160.

5. Please clarify the special PCB shaping technique used to reduce leakage current.

6. Please explain the reason for the larger error (0.7173%) mentioned in line 178.

7. Please detail the number of calibrations required for the proposed method. Additionally, explain and justify how often calibration is needed.

8. Please elaborate on the self-test mentioned in line 216.

9. There are some minor English mistakes in the manuscript. For example, in line 220, there is an extra space after "U_DS." It is recommended to thoroughly review the manuscript and correct any potential English errors.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We are thakful for your valuable comments and suggestion. The detailed response follows:

 

Reviewer: Please include a quantitative comparison of performance metrics and prices between the proposed method and available commercial products. Please provide a quantitative comparison of the proposed method with previous works and available commercial products in terms of sensitivity, bandwidth, and noise level.

Authors: Thank you for your inspiring comment. The comparison of performance metrics of the presented system and available commercial products was included in the revised manuscript. However, the price comparison is not very meaningful because of the price evolution in time. On the other hand, the price level is extremely different since construction of our measurement system is reaching the level of 2.000 euro, while the price of commercial system such as Keithley 2400 is about 15.000 euro and Keysight B1500A even the level of 150.000 euro.

 

Reviewer: Please specify the software used for the simulation mentioned in line 159, and include the simulation results.

Authors: Thank you for your comment. The simulation toll LTSpice was used for this purpose. Detailed information including the simulation scheme was incorporated into the Supplementary information.

 

Reviewer: Please explain how the values of the passive components are adjusted, as mentioned in line 160.

Authors: Thank you for your kind interest. During the simulations, we noticed a big influence of the feedback capacitors on the current measurement using the transimpedance connection. Therefore, we optimised this capacitor on the basis of simulation and transmission width so that it affects the measured result as little as possible. We also optimised the resistance sizes of the following operational amplifiers that preprocess the signal for the ADC converter.

 

Reviewer: Please clarify the special PCB shaping technique used to reduce leakage current.

Authors: The special technique of shaping the PCB is based on cutouts in the given PCB and revealing the conductive vests that are at the input of the sensitive current meter, thus eliminating the escaping current on the surface of the PCB through passivation, but also minimizing the leakage through the volume of the PCB. The PCB shaping is described and illustrated in Supplementary Information.

 

Reviewer: Please explain the reason for the larger error (0.7173%) mentioned in line 178.

Authors: We need to admit that our electronic system has a higher measurement error in the range of ±20nA. It is the price for the low-cost system. It should be noted here that the manufacturing price of our system reaches level of 2,000 euro while the Keithley sourcemeters starts about 15.000 euro and the Keysight B1500A goes to the level of 150.000 euro and more.

 

Reviewer: Please detail the number of calibrations required for the proposed method. Additionally, explain and justify how often calibration is needed.

Authors: Thank you for an interesting question. With this device, we performed one calibration using the Keithley 2400 device, while the calibration verification was performed using the Keisight B1500A. We cannot comment precisely on the number of calibration cycles or time intervals of the necessity of calibrations since we have not performed such a test of the shift of the measured voltage/current or the generated voltage in the long term. Nevertheless, for an interval of several months we did not observed any change in the measurement precision.

 

Reviewer: Please elaborate on the self-test mentioned in line 216.

Authors: The self-test is a part of the firmware that can initially test individual cards with each other to see if they work correctly using a defined element connected between individual measuring cards; specifically, it is a control of voltage generation using a voltage measurement card or checking the flowing current with the help of the generated voltage connected through a resistor. Appropriate comment was included in the Supplementary information.

 

Reviewer: There are some minor English mistakes in the manuscript. For example, in line 220, there is an extra space after "U_DS." It is recommended to thoroughly review the manuscript and correct any potential English errors.

Authors: Thank you for your sharp-eyed review. The whole manuscript was proofread once again to avoid mistakes.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work propose a design of the OFET test system involving the hardware, firmware and software development. In general, it is practical and valuable to the community. However, several concerns should be addressed before the recommendation.

 

1.    The authors proposed the system with voltage/current generation and or measurement capability at pA (nV) level, however, for such precise and low level IV test, the good electrical-input to enable these modules like Vds Vgs source/mearsure and TIA current mearre is very important. In Fig 1, it is proposed the Galvanically isolated DCDC for elelctrical-suply, and the content might be more valuable if some details about the Galvanically isolated DCDC could be added

2.    The simulation of the circuit should add more detail about the simulation-software. the model of the selected chips like LTC6090, LMP7721 employed in the simulation. E.g.,, the simulation shows that the leakage current as low as 3fA of LMP7721, some details allow the circuit to lowing the leakdge might be helpful and provide clues for the readers to verify and/or further improve the methods of OFET IV characterization. If possible, adding the schematic circuits details for the simulation in Supporting Information could enhance the value to the readers remarkably, especially, considering the core topic discussed in this work is exactly the development of a OFET test system  

3.    Line 189, what about chanells A and B? The reviewer feel a bit strange, since no content mentioned about the chanells A and B in the manuscript in the content above. Are there two cards calibrated by Keithley 2400? Or the aurhtor use two chanells on Keithley 2400 to calibrated the same cards?

4.    About the calibration, both Table 1 and 2 mentioned parameters k and q, however, the formula or equation involving k and q mentioned in the draft. What k and q means?

5.    Besides some typos should be polished, e.g. line 297, “his” should be “this”?   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No seperated Comments on the Quality of English

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. The detail response follows:

 

Reviewer: The authors proposed the system with voltage/current generation and or measurement capability at pA (nV) level, however, for such precise and low level IV test, the good electrical-input to enable these modules like Vds Vgs source/mearsure and TIA current mearre is very important. In Fig 1, it is proposed the Galvanically isolated DCDC for elelctrical-suply, and the content might be more valuable if some details about the Galvanically isolated DCDC could be added.

Authors: Thank you to pointing out an important issue. The use of galvanic separators to power individual modules was necessary to eliminate ground loops and suppress interference between individual cards. Our specific connection utilizes several TRACO galvanic DC/DC converters. For the current meter's power source, we employ a TRACO TBA 2-0521, which generates +5V and -5V. These voltages are filtered by a 100Hz Pi low-pass filter and subsequently stabilised by low-noise, high-PSSR LDO regulators, the TPS72325 and TLV73325, to +2.5V and -2.5V, respectively, for powering the operational amplifier. The maximum noise of these supply voltages was measured at 3.3 mVrms.
For the voltage measurement and generation source, we use TRACO TBA 2-0521 and TRACO TBA 2-0513 converters. The outputs of these converters are connected in series, yielding voltages of +35V and -35V. These voltages are also filtered by a Pi low-pass filter and then stabilised by low-noise, high-PSSR LDO regulators, the LM317 and LM337, to +32V and -32V, respectively, for powering input and output operational amplifiers. The maximum noise of these supply voltages was measured at 5.1 mVrms. Appropriate information was included in the Supplementary information.

 

Reviewer: The simulation of the circuit should add more detail about the simulation-software. the model of the selected chips like LTC6090, LMP7721 employed in the simulation. E.g.,, the simulation shows that the leakage current as low as 3fA of LMP7721, some details allow the circuit to lowing the leakdge might be helpful and provide clues for the readers to verify and/or further improve the methods of OFET IV characterization. If possible, adding the schematic circuits details for the simulation in Supporting Information could enhance the value to the readers remarkably, especially, considering the core topic discussed in this work is exactly the development of a OFET test system.

Authors: Thank you for your kind interest. The simulation tool LTSpice was used to simulate the device properties. Appropriate information, including the simulated scheme, is inluded in the Supplementary Information.

 

Reviewer: Line 189, what about chanells A and B? The reviewer feel a bit strange, since no content mentioned about the chanells A and B in the manuscript in the content above. Are there two cards calibrated by Keithley 2400? Or the aurhtor use two chanells on Keithley 2400 to calibrated the same cards?

Authors: We are thankful for an important comment. The measuring card has two channels (denoted as A and B) since we are measuring the drain current and the gate current simultaneously. Both cards are callibrated using Keithley 2400 and verified by Keysight B1500A.

 

Reviewer:  About the calibration, both Table 1 and 2 mentioned parameters k and q, however, the formula or equation involving k and q mentioned in the draft. What k and q means?

Authoers: Since the calibration curve has a linear character, the k stands for the slope (current to ADC) and the q represents the offset (current). Appropriate table captions were included in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer:  Besides some typos should be polished, e.g. line 297, “his” should be “this”?

Authors: We apologise for this typo. The whole manuscript was proofread once again to avoid mistakesl ike this one.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work has been revised well. However, the following comments have not been addressed properly. Please revise your paper accordingly and always mention the page number and line number while address the response to the comments. 

1) What are the preceding affined articles in this work ? A tabular form should be represented as well that what contributions were made in those articles and what are their limitations. And what limitations are you targeting in this work ? or it is yet another paper. The table 5 is a quantitative comparison table. Preceding affined articles discussion is a different table. Please read quality papers to understand the meaning of this comment. 

2) Since there is no mathematical representation made for this work, there should be a pseudo code before the measurements section. Pseudo codes are designed for practitioners to understand things smoothly. The variables of input and output are required to be defined in the tables. And then that defined language of variables are required to be used in the rest of the lines of each algorithm. Please follow the above steps accordingly. Supplementary diagrams are not sufficient. Please read quality Q1/Q2 papers to understand the meaning of this comment and address it accordingly. 

3) The literature review of this work is very limited. And hence comment # 1 was made on the same. For a work talking about the high precision measurement system, low cost, and organic electronics, the role of energy management and energy storage should be added in the introduction section which is improved to the high precision measurement route of this work. This will allow to widen the spectrum of audience while appreciating the organic electronics. Some suggested references in the energy storage and management domain are as follows: 1) `Energy storage technologies: An integrated survey of developments, global economical/environmental effects, optimal scheduling model, and sustainable adaption policies’ 2) `Organic thermoelectric materials for energy harvesting and temperature control’, and 3) `A solar-powered multi-functional portable charging device (SPMFPCD) with internet-of-things (IoT)-based real-time monitoring—An innovative scheme towards energy access and management’. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer: 1) What are the preceding affined articles in this work ? A tabular form should be represented as well that what contributions were made in those articles and what are their limitations. And what limitations are you targeting in this work ? or it is yet another paper. The table 5 is a quantitative comparison table. Preceding affined articles discussion is a different table. Please read quality papers to understand the meaning of this comment. 

Authors: Thank you for your kind suggestion. The authors respect the previous works done in this field. We already cited various reports in the introduction section where we made a state-of-the-art; however, we understand that the detailed and clear comparison is needed. As a result, we included a summary table comparing various previously reported approaches in the Supplementary information. We believe that it will helps readers to find the pros and cons of all suggested methods.

 

Reviewer: 2) Since there is no mathematical representation made for this work, there should be a pseudo code before the measurements section. Pseudo codes are designed for practitioners to understand things smoothly. The variables of input and output are required to be defined in the tables. And then that defined language of variables are required to be used in the rest of the lines of each algorithm. Please follow the above steps accordingly. Supplementary diagrams are not sufficient. Please read quality Q1/Q2 papers to understand the meaning of this comment and address it accordingly.

Authors: We are grateful for your valuable comment. We included the pseudocode in the Supplementary Information to provide all informations to the reader.

 

Reviewer: 3) The literature review of this work is very limited. And hence comment # 1 was made on the same. For a work talking about the high precision measurement system, low cost, and organic electronics, the role of energy management and energy storage should be added in the introduction section which is improved to the high precision measurement route of this work. This will allow to widen the spectrum of audience while appreciating the organic electronics. Some suggested references in the energy storage and management domain are as follows: 1) `Energy storage technologies: An integrated survey of developments, global economical/environmental effects, optimal scheduling model, and sustainable adaption policies’ 2) `Organic thermoelectric materials for energy harvesting and temperature control’, and 3) `A solar-powered multi-functional portable charging device (SPMFPCD) with internet-of-things (IoT)-based real-time monitoring—An innovative scheme towards energy access and management’. 

Authors: We fully agree with the reviewer with the need for the discussion on this topic. Therefore, appropriate discussion was included in the manuscript, and references suggested by the reviewer were included. Please see revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been addressed.

Author Response

We are thankful for your support.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised well. I recommend the acceptance of this work in its current form. 

However, I am still not satisfied by the revision style of the authors. Why are you trying to hide the pseudo code and preceding affined table in the supplementary files. If you do not allow the readers to completely understand your work, why they should cite you ? These are the basics towards any quality research write-up to give the maximum information of your research/design so that people can reproduce the work.