Conductive Coatings on PDMS, PMMA, and Glass: Comparative Study of Graphene, Graphene Oxide, and Silver Nanoparticle Composites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a comparative analysis of  the electrochemical properties of three different materials and three different substrates. The conducted studies are thorough, however no novel interpretations are provided by the manuscript. 

A few specific comments :

1. Section 3.1: On what substrate have the authors conducted the SEM studies?
2. Section 3.1: Why is no SEM provided for silver nanoparticles?
3. Lines 225-227: The mention of the substrate in the text does not match the graph legends. Please correct.
4. The authors provide detailed results, however, the discussion is quite vague. For instance, the discussion of Raman spectrograph says that silver nanoparticles may have favorable interactions with the PMMA substrate. But there is no reasoning provided as to what kind of interactions could potentially explain the Raman enhancement. Such instances are repeated throughout the paper. 
5.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting to see the comparative study of Graphene, Graphene Oxide, and Silver Nanoparticle Composites, however, the following questions need to be addressed for further improvement of the manuscript,

1. Suggest revising the title, coatings, and substrates should be included. 

2. Coating materials and their purpose and results in the corresponding applications are not novel and as the authors mentioned "This research explores the comparative performance of graphene, graphene oxide (GO), and silver nanoparticle (Ag NPs) composites as conductive coatings on diverse substrate materials, including polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA),  and glass." recommending to discuss and add its context in abstract.

3. Comment 2 context should be included in the discussion, emphasizing its details for data figures. 

4. In line 132 authors mentioned and claimed 'possesses superior mechanical strength and fracture resistance compared to the graphene coating." please highlight and discuss the details of -"mechanical strength " . In current version its not included and discussed and so how to confirm its superior mechanical strength over other coatings?

5. Fig 6 EIS (A) and CV (B) of graphene/PMMA with different film thicknesses. since it is a comprehensive study the authors studied all the different coatings on different substrates.

6. Suggesting to tabulate the information of coating materials and substrates with its preparation method with the literature and highlight the significance.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In this work, the authors performed a comparative study of graphene, graphene oxide, and silver nanoparticle conductive composite coatings on various substrates, whose electrochemical characteristics may find importance in the field and interesting to the broader audience. However, there are still some concerns in the manuscript that need to be addressed to be suitable for publication. A major revision is recommended.

1.             What is the actual chemical composition of graphene, GO, and AgNPs dispersions? The authors mention that they are aqueous dispersions. However, in contrast with GO, graphene is hydrophobic, and there is no way pure graphene can disperse in water alone. Either the graphene has been modified, or the surfactant has been added to stabilise the aqueous graphene dispersion. Omitting this information may render the study not “comparative”.

2.             XPS or FTIR should be carried out to understand the chemical state/bonding of these samples.

3.             The introduction needs to be revised to highlight the rationale of the work. Some relevant papers should be included: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2018.09.003; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2020.105741

4.             I disagree with the suggestion that “GO coatings possesses superior mechanical strength and fracture resistance compared to the graphene coating” solely from the SEM images. This is rather the different wetting properties of graphene and GO. Graphene flakes are always flat and GO sheets are wrinkle. (See SEMs on these paper to compare: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10020113 & https://doi.org/10.1039/D2YA00298A). The mechanical properties of the freestanding films of these samples need to be measured for a reliable comparison.

5.             Since the samples are prepared by drop-casting, actual photographs of the samples should be provided to compare if they are homogeneous and if the “ring-coffee effect” occurred.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript is well-edited and contains all the required and suggested information. In addition, the authors satisfactorily responded to all the comments provided. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks the authors for their effort in revising the manuscript. It is now suitable for publication.