Nonradiative Energy Transfer in Bi₂O₃/Tm₂O₃ Powders under IR Excitation at Liquid Nitrogen Temperature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the paper, and my general opinion about this work is neutral. However, it contains valuable results, especially kinetic decay, and reflection spectra. The work suffers from a clear goal, and I could not catch it. Presenting some results without a clear goal is not the best option. Some Figures are provided with poor quality. The language and the style require improvement. Here are some more detailed comments on this paper:

-          The language and the style need some corrections; some sentences are not clear or written in a not appropriate way, for example, in line 38: “A special role in this regard is played a low temperature studies, which make it possible to observe invisible and forbidden transitions with single-band and narrow emission peaks in systems consist of a two different RE ions [20–22]. “  Should be rather play a low temperature… and …in systems consisting of…

-          I would expect more clarification concerning the goal of this work (in the Introduction section). Why did you choose such compositions etc

-          The authors are asked to provide more details concerning the samples, their dimensions, and composition

-          The real composition of the grown samples should be checked. It is highly important to confirm starting composition to analyze properly obtained experimental data.

-          The properties of grown in this way materials strongly depend on the annealing parameters like temperature and duration time. Did the authors check it?

-          There is typing error in the caption of Fig. 1. Instead of Latin b, there is a Russian letter.

-          Why do the authors not present SEM images versus composition? It could be interested.

-          The quality of Fig. 3  is low; also, why did authors present in (b) only selected compositions?

In summary, I recommend a major revision of the paper with the option of resubmission but after significant improvements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the manuscript entitled “Nonradiative energy transfer in Bi2O3/Tm2O3powders under IR excitation at liquid nitrogen temperature” written by D. A. Artamonovet at . The manuscript presents interesting results for the spectroscopy forum. However, the XRD and SEM results should be improved to be considered for publication in Crystals.

 

In the present format, I recommend the rejection of this manuscript.

 

Figures associated with the spectroscopy section should also be improved.

 

Below are some suggestions you may consider to substantially improve the manuscript.

 

1. Panel (a-c) exhibits XRD patterns. Some peaks should be indexed, probably attributed to other phase. -Include more experimental conditions such as geometry, step, etc...

 

I also recommend a Rietveld analysis for XRD patterns in order to obtain the average crystal size and monitor the unit cell parameters' evolution.

 

2. How affects the presence of this second phase (impurity) in the microstructure and the spectroscopic response?

 

3. Figure 1 should maintain the format that the authors presents for Figure 6 (for example).

 

4. Same step (x-axis) for all panels.

 

5. A microstructural discussion should be included in the SEM section. In the conclusions, the authors show the specific surface granular structure (100 nm in size). The authors should include a histogram analysis to elucidate this value.

For example, the author can be applied the histogram analysis for panel f (figure 2) using Image J software in combination with Origin software.

 

6. Figure 6 should maintain the same step (x-axis).

7. Indexing each peak for panels a and b (figure 6

8. Discuss the spectroscopic information due to their respective indexing (panels a and b)

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments sufficiently, so the paper can be now accepted.

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the recommendation to accept the article for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Nonradiative energy transfer in Bi2O3/Tm2O3 powders under IR excitation at liquid nitrogen temperature, written by Artamonov et al.

Suggestions to improve the figures.

1.     Figure 1 includes units in the x-axis, 2-theta (degrees).

2.     In panel a, XRD figure; what are the Miller indices for diffraction peaks at about 35, 50, 57, 59, 67, and 68 degrees?

3.     In panel b, XRD figure; what are the Miller indices for diffraction peaks at about 36, 38, 63, and 66 degrees?

4.     Same comment for panel c

5.     Please identify all of those diffraction planes (panels a-c).

6.     EDX analysis shows too small an energy (x-axis) scale.

7.     In the SEM section, provide the criteria to perform the crystallite size distribution

8.     Please enlarge the size of the text in Figure 5. It’s too small to read. So, they should be replaced with new ones.

9.     Panel a and b should be presented on the same scale (y-axis and x-axis). Take care of the subscripts for the compounds.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf