Review Reports - Synergistic Effects in Hybrid Buckypapers of Graphene Nanoplatelets and Carbon Nanotubes: Processing and Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, hybrid BPs were fabricated and characterized to evaluate the structural, thermal, and electrical properties. Key review comments are as follow.

The study select the CNT material with high disorder structures, and the composites all behaved higher Raman disorder peaks. Are the high disorder structures of the composites mainly from the CNT materials, or from the composite production processing? If CNTs with high graphite performance are used, what will happen?
The MWCNTs were described with average length of 1.5 um. According to Fig. 3a, it appears that the CNT lengths were much longer. Please explain.
From Figure 3b, it seems that the many GPNs are thicker than 4 nm. The better way to characterize is by HRTEM method.
As shown in Fig. 6c, why the ID and IG peaks are very week for the CNT/GPN ratio of 0/100 sample?
What will happen for the GNP/CNT of 100/0 material from the AC measurement?

In this study, hybrid BPs were fabricated and characterized to evaluate the structural, thermal, and electrical properties. Key review comments are as follow.

The study select the CNT material with high disorder structures, and the composites all behaved higher Raman disorder peaks. Are the high disorder structures of the composites mainly from the CNT materials, or from the composite production processing? If CNTs with high graphite performance are used, what will happen?
The MWCNTs were described with average length of 1.5 um. According to Fig. 3a, it appears that the CNT lengths were much longer. Please explain.
From Figure 3b, it seems that the many GPNs are thicker than 4 nm. The better way to characterize is by HRTEM method.
As shown in Fig. 6c, why the ID and IG peaks are very week for the CNT/GPN ratio of 0/100 sample?
What will happen for the GNP/CNT of 100/0 material from the AC measurement?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer report on manuscript “carbon-3925621”

Thais Ferreira da Silva et al. “Synergistic effects in hybrid buckypapers of graphene nanoplatelets and carbon nanotubes: Processing and performance”

In present study, hybrid buckypapers (BPs) were fabricated and characterized to evaluate their structural, thermal, and electrical properties. Hybrid BPs with varying GNP/CNT mass ratios (0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, 85/15, 90/10, and 95/5 wt%) were prepared via vacuum-assisted filtration of well-dispersed aqueous suspensions stabilized by surfactants. The resulting hybrids GNP/CNT BPs were dried and subjected to post-treatment processes to enhance structural integrity and electrical performance. Characterization techniques included scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR), Raman spectroscopy, thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), nitrogen adsorption/desorption isotherms, and impedance spectroscopy (IS). The hybrid GNP/CNT BPs exhibited electrical conductivities comparable to conventional CNT-based BPs. At GNP concentrations of 25 to 50 wt%, electrical conductivity values approached those of CNT-based BPs, while at GNP concentrations between 75 and 90 wt%, a slight increase in conductivity was observed (171%). These results highlight a synergistic effect at lower CNT concentrations, where the combination of CNTs and GNPs enhances conductivity.

The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

Overall, the quality of the work is good, however I point out some comments to help the author improve the manuscript before publication.

Questions/comments:

Authors wrote on page 2: “Advances in materials science, particularly in fabrication techniques and production technologies, have driven the emergence of novel carbon-based materials such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphite, and graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs)…”. This statement isn’t partially correct. Graphite is well known among scientific and technical communities for eternity. Therefore, it should be corrected. I recommend editing this sentence and including some words about graphynes with referencing to publication of Prof. Belenkov with colleagues in in book “Handbook on the Graphene: Graphene-like 2D Materials (Vol. 3)”.
The peaks’ assignment in Raman spectra (Figure 2) is not very good justified. I recommend using the publication [Kharlamova et al. Nanotechnologies in Russia, 2009, 4(9-10), 77-87], and references there.
The peaks’ assignment in XRD spectra (Figure 2) is not very good justified. There are not up-to-date references for choice of components. I recommend using the publication [Yalovega et al. Nanomaterials, 2024, 14(11), 947], and references there.
Statement about “Data availability” is missing.
Statement about “Conflict of interest” is missing.

Reviewer report on manuscript “carbon-3925621”

Thais Ferreira da Silva et al. “Synergistic effects in hybrid buckypapers of graphene nanoplatelets and carbon nanotubes: Processing and performance”

The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

Overall, the quality of the work is good, however I point out some comments to help the author improve the manuscript before publication.

Questions/comments:

Authors wrote on page 2: “Advances in materials science, particularly in fabrication techniques and production technologies, have driven the emergence of novel carbon-based materials such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphite, and graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs)…”. This statement isn’t partially correct. Graphite is well known among scientific and technical communities for eternity. Therefore, it should be corrected. I recommend editing this sentence and including some words about graphynes with referencing to publication of Prof. Belenkov with colleagues in in book “Handbook on the Graphene: Graphene-like 2D Materials (Vol. 3)”.
The peaks’ assignment in Raman spectra (Figure 2) is not very good justified. I recommend using the publication [Kharlamova et al. Nanotechnologies in Russia, 2009, 4(9-10), 77-87], and references there.
The peaks’ assignment in XRD spectra (Figure 2) is not very good justified. There are not up-to-date references for choice of components. I recommend using the publication [Yalovega et al. Nanomaterials, 2024, 14(11), 947], and references there.
Statement about “Data availability” is missing.
Statement about “Conflict of interest” is missing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The Introduction appropriately mentions the research objectives, prior studies, and application areas.

Experimental is clearly stated. However, the number of layers in the GNP requires precise notation, and the XRD measurement range requires clear indication.

Appropriate citations and interpretations were provided for each analysis section in the Results and Discussion.

Line 109 mentions GNPs with four graphene layers,

line 121 mentions fewer than four graphene layers,

and line 312 mentions that the FEG-SEM analysis results indicate that the GNPs consist of four graphene layers.

Please indicate clearly to avoid confusing readers.

Line 145 mentions that the XRD measurement range was measured from 10˚ to 60˚.

However, the XRD in Figure 2. (C) appears to have been measured over a broader range.

Please verify the measurement range and make corrections.

Line 367 : Raman spectra are mentioned as being provided in Fig. 5C, but they are actually shown in Fig. 6C. Please verify and correct this.

Figure 2 A, B, C and Figure 6 C: Verify that the notation for the y-axis label “Intensity (u.a.)” is correct, then revise it.

In Figure 7, unify the colors by sample condition within the Legend. This may cause confusion for readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted.

Recommend to be accepted