Next Article in Journal
Oxide Derived Copper for Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 to C2+ Products
Next Article in Special Issue
Trench FinFET Nanostructure with Advanced Ferroelectric Nanomaterial HfZrO2 for Sub-60-mV/Decade Subthreshold Slope for Low Power Application
Previous Article in Journal
Static and Dynamic Biomaterial Engineering for Cell Modulation
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Realizing Broadband NIR Photodetection and Ultrahigh Responsivity with Ternary Blend Organic Photodetector

Nanomaterials 2022, 12(8), 1378; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12081378
by Yang-Yen Yu 1,*, Yan-Cheng Peng 1, Yu-Cheng Chiu 2, Song-Jhe Liu 3 and Chih-Ping Chen 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Nanomaterials 2022, 12(8), 1378; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12081378
Submission received: 28 March 2022 / Revised: 11 April 2022 / Accepted: 13 April 2022 / Published: 18 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Nanomaterials for Soft and Wearable Electronics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an experimental realization of near-infrared organic photodiodes (OPDs) having a broad bandwidth (350–950 nm), ultrahigh responsivity, and a high photoresponse frequency. For this purpose, they used a ternary blend strategy to prepare PM6:BTP-eC9:PCBM–based OPDs displaying an extremely low dark current  (~10-9A cm-2) and high detectivity (~1013 Jones) at 860 nm. The developed devices outperform commercial inorganic Si photodetectors. I found that the idea and approach not very original, although its physical realization worths recognition. The manuscript can be published in Nanomaterials.

 

Author Response

 

Thank you very much for the referees’ comments on our manuscript.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of OPDs is a very important nowdays, which makes the paper actual and important. The presented results are novel, and the conducted experiments support the conclusions made. This can suffice to make the paper suitable for publication, if not the awfully careless preparation. Please revise the whole paper from this point of view! I present below just several examples, which are, however, much more numerous, and they make reading the paper an unpleasant reading.

Here are some examples:  

1) Please check for misprints, such as "(114 and 110 ns, respectively.." in the abstract (no closing bracket + double fullstop).

2) Figures 2, 4 (at least) brakes the sentence

3) Fig 3 caption includes double "and"

4) "Å –1", "W–1", etc. should contain a superscript

 5) Lines 282-293: does the Eq. (3) correspond to the text or to the Fig. 5? The text size is that of the Fig caption, and the Figures brakes the text. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the referees’ comments on our manuscript. We have carefully modified our manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted all the changes by giving the text a yellow background in marked copy of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop