Composite Membrane Based on Graphene Oxide and Carboxymethylcellulose from Local Kazakh Raw Materials for Possible Applications in Electronic Devices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear authors,

The reviewed version of the manuscript has been largerly improved. Although, it is necessary to correct some typographical mistakes (space between number and unit, and more specifically, there is still an "airgel" to correct as aerogel (two lines before the corrected word).

Concerning the results and discussion, on page 10, line 278, instead of "CMC molecules", it shall refer to "the glucopyranose units of the cellullose polymer chains" 

Based on this observations, I recommend this article for publication once the above mentioned points are resolved.

Typographical and omission of some corrections.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer thank you so much for your comments. We completely agree with all remarks.

We tried to answer on all your comments, we hope that you will accept this manuscript with all the answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript has been revised. Responses to the comments section are well-organized. A study of the composite membrane in a humidity sensor had been conducted. In my opinion, this manuscript needs to have minor revisions to be published in this journal, following reasons:

1.     The reason for using this composite membrane in assembling the humidity sensors should be mentioned in the introduction.

2.     The GO-based humidity sensor and the DHT 22 sensor are mounted on a dielectric substrate shown in Figure 3. However, they are separated in Figure 4. Please explain this point.

3.     A digital image of the humidity sensor should be provided.

 In my opinion, this manuscript could be published in this journal after minor revision.

Some English modifications are required to convey the clear meaning of the sentence.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer thank you so much for your comments. We completely agree with all remarks.

We tried to answer on all your comments, we hope that you will accept this manuscript with all the answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Through the kind and adequate responses of authors, the doubts are dispelled and the errors of the manuscript are correctly revised. I think the authors provide quite reasonable changes.

Thus, I gladly recommend that this manuscript might be suitable to publish to this journal.

There is no difficulty in understanding the content of the entire English sentence.
However, some sentences with grammatical errors need to be corrected.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript describes a novel composite films consisted on locally obtained materials and prepared via unexpensive methods. Such idea presents some novelty, altough, there are some inconsistencies about the overall results and the basic concepts.

on page 2, line 62 Airgel is ambiguous, is it aerogel? It is necessary to review and change if necessary

on page 4, line 141. Nano starch film refers to the GO/CMC composite? please explain.

On the XRD  section, it is necessary to justify the graphene periodicity with Scherrer equation, considering the background of the diffractometer.

On the other hand, the electrical characterization present the following inconsistencies: 

-Error bars of each film measurements are missing.

-If the resistivity increases as the graphene loading increases, please explain why such "trap" states form and overcome graphite's percollation, which is not expected for the former's conductivity mechanism.

-Another important point is the fact that the mechanical tests were not carried out, but were mentioned along the manuscript as one of the advantages. No necessary "sophisticated" devices can be used to determine Young modulus of such samples, but such tests might improve the importance of the composites properties that remain mostly speculations.

-In abstract and conclusion a hierarchical material is proven (few particles on the surface and stratified GO on the inner part of the composite film) due to aggregation?. Whereas the text point out a homogeneously dispersed graphene loading. 

 

Based on the above mentioned points, I regret that such work cannot be accepted in the present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you so much for your comments. We completely agree with all remarks.

We tried to answer on all your comments, we hope that you will accept this manuscript with all the answers.

The corrected text is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the full review attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English needs minimal proofreading, such as changing 'degree' to 'degrees', etc.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you so much for your comments. We completely agree with all remarks.

We tried to answer on all your comments, we hope that you will accept this manuscript with all the answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript describes the fabrication of GO from "Ognevsky" graphite (local Kazakh raw materials) by Hummers method and its membrane with carboxymethylcellulose (GO/CMC). SEM, FTIR, XRD analysis and resistivity of the two materials was investigated. But from my standpoint, there are still many shortcomings that need to be adjusted to be published in this journal, following reasons:

1.     The aim of this study is not clear. What is the purpose of creating GO/CMC composite? Surveying resistivity is not enough to assess the applicability of materials in electronic devices.

2.     This study lacks the investigation data to highlight the necessity of using "Ognevsky" graphite instead of other graphite sources.

3.     Citations are not selective.

4.     Many studies related to GO/CMC composite have been published. Using “Ognevsky” graphite as a GO source is insufficient for the novelty.  

In my opinion, this manuscript could not be published in this journal without further study and modification.

 

need to improve.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer thank you so much for your comments. We completely agree with all remarks.

We tried to answer on all your comments, we hope that you will accept this manuscript with all the answers.

The corrected text is attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the major issues have been fixed and the manuscript has been greatly improved.

I think it would be a great addition to the Composite Science journal and would be of great use to researchers studying graphene oxide composites.

A very minor spellcheck is required during proofread.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been revised. Responses to the comments section are well-organized. But from my standpoint, there are still many shortcomings that need to be adjusted to be published in this journal, the following reasons:

1.      Based on the author's response, using "Ognevsky" graphite instead of synthetic graphite is necessary for more cost-effective GO material. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the synthesis efficiency (yield) and evaluate the quality of GO compared with the one derived from synthesis graphite.  

2.      To fit the level of impact factor, a study of this material in a particular application (battery, sensor, capacitor, etc.) needs to be added.

 

 In my opinion, this manuscript could not be published in this journal without further study and modification.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer thank you so much for your comments. We completely agree with all remarks.

We tried to answer on all your comments, we hope that you will accept this manuscript with all the answers.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx