Water-Assisted Perovskite Quantum Dots with High Optical Properties
, Junya Enomoto 1, Naoaki Oshita 1, Taisei Kimura 1, Keisuke Kikuchi 1, Satoshi Asakura 2, Kazuki Umemoto 1 and Akito Masuhara 1,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has original character well described in a complete introduction clearly written based on the new references. Proposing an economical procedure such as one pot method with a little water to achieve high performance and elucidate e the effect of water on the preparation process of MAPbBr3PeQDs, the paper is suitable for the journal Technologies, section Innovations in Materials Processing
Such merits recommend the manuscript for publication existing only minor things to be completed in a revised forms such as
a) there are only 6 figures in the text and no tables. May be the tables S1 and S2 from supplementary file have a better place inside the manuscript.
b) the peaks values are not indicated with values in the figures ( see Fig.5 as example )
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors performed a short study: "Water-assisted Perovskite Quantum Dots with High Optical Properties".
The study deals with the preparation and characterization of lead halide perovskite quantum dots by controlling the amount of assisting water during the preparation of the PeQDs.
Abstract
In "XPS measurement showed that the ratio of Br/Pb achieved to be close to the 3.00."
There is no need for 2 decimal places in the number format.
Introduction is well written and covered with proper references. In my opinion, there is no need for changes.
page 2
Materials and Methods
"(40℃ 24 h)" could be nicely written as "(at 40℃ for 24 h)".
page 3
Abbreviation "LARP" is defined again (first time in the Introduction) and this should be corrected and checked for all abbreviations in the manuscript.
page 3
"2.4. characterization" should be "2.4. Characterization".
page 4
On Fig. 2 the distribution of particle size were presented. It looks like that with 5 ul water there is a significant reduction in the spread of the values (variance) together with the increase of the average particle size.
But the same is not obtained for 2.5 and 7.5 ul. Although the variance looks the same for these cases, the average particle size is not. Is there any explanation for this type of behavior?
Are these experiments reproducible with the same number? It seems to me as the most important question to answer in the study.
An additional point is that all the materials in the supplementary should be included in the paper for better overview.
References in the text should be uniformed, sometimes it's just a number and sometimes e.g. it's "[reff 22].
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
- The qualiy of TEM Pictures in Figure2 are low and in the Figure2a, I can see the cubic patterns (large sized MAPbBr3 PeQDs). On the other hand, in Figure3 you have used small blue balls for small sized MAPbBr3 PeQDs. Using HRTEM with 5 nm scale bars and clearly shows that in Figure 2a you have cubic shapes or not.
- In Figure 6b, you have used Br3d XPS. I need the same but for Pd3d and survey with and without water. Moreover, compare the results of Pd3d in MAPbBr3 PeQDs with the PdBr2 as a reference in Handbook of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accepted.
