Sol-Gel Derived Di-Ureasil Based Ormolytes for Electrochromic Devices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. The authors should rewrite the abstract for these standards.
2. Missed section Conclusion. Generally, this section must be present in all research articles. The section Conclusion and Abstract have to be connected and give the answers to the same questions.
3. If authors would like to add a section Discussion after the section Results, it more likely has to show some comparison with the achieved results and current research in the field. Better to use references no longer than five years.  
4. Many abbreviations in the article must be given in one section. Chemical formulas have to doublecheck according to the IUPAC

Author Response

Question 1: In the abstract we addressed all the aspects above mentioned (purpose of the research, principal results and major conclusions) . However we changed some the sentences.

 

Question 2: We understand this comment. However, we have followed strictly the guidelines for the Energies journal. 

 

Question 3: We understand this comment. However, we have followed strictly the guidelines for the Energies journal. 

 

Question 4: The abbreviations employed were indicated in the main text. However, we prepared a list of abbreviations. However, we don’t know where to include them.

[Bmim]Cl - 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride

∆(OD) – Optical density

∆Q - amount of charge necessary to produce the optical change (in C)

AFM – atomic force microscopy

a-IZO – amorphous indium zinc oxide

a-WO3 – amorphous tungsten oxide

CA – chronoamperometry (CA)

CIE 1976 - Commission Internationale d’Éclairage 1976

c-NiO – crystalline nickel oxide

CV – cyclic voltammetry

ECDs - Electrochromic devices

ECWs – Electrochromic Windows

IC – ion conductor

ICPTES - 3-isocyanatepropyltriethoxysilane

IL – ionic liquid

LiBF4 - lithium tetrafluoroborate

NIR regions - near-infrared regions

PEs – polymer electrolytes

POM – Polarized optical microscopy

TCO – transparente conductive oxide layer

TGA – Thermogravimetric analysis

UV-Vis spectroscopy - ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) spectroscopy

XRD – X-ray diffraction

 

Important note:

We realized that some CE values in Table 1 where wrong. We apologize for the error. We have now introduced the right values, which are higher than those initially indicated.

 

Thanks for your review. See attached document with responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented to the review, entitled “Sol-gel derived di-ureasil based ormolytes for electrochromic devices”, is very interesting. I appreciate this work and would like to recommend it for publication in Energies after corrections.

Below are my comments:

1) The definition of ionic liquids „ILs are organic molten salts with a bulky organic cation coordinated weakly to an organic or inorganic anion” presented in the article is incorrect. In the literature [Shobukawa H., Tokuda H., Tabaata S., Watanabe M., Electrochim. Acta, 50, 305 (2004).] ionic liquids with inorganic cations are described. Besides, the ionic liquid is not a molten salt. Completely  inorganic ionic liquids are also known [Dai L., Yu S.,  Shan Y., He M., Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 237 (2004)]. The correct definition of ionic liquids is given by P. Wasserscheid who is an authority in the field of ionic liquids: „Ionic liquids are salts that are liquid at low temperature (< 100^oC) which represent a new class of solvents with nonmolecular, ionic character”. [Wasserscheid P., Keim W., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 39, 3773 (2000)].

2) The authors wrote that high purity distilled water was used in all experiments. In such studies, it is essential that it is deionized water, so conductivity must be reported.

3) The name "N-butylimidazolium trifluoromethanesulfonate proton IL" is incorrect. This is a protic ionic liquid and should be called: 1-butylimidazolium trifluoromethanesulfonate.

Author Response

Question 1: We do not agree with the reviewer. The definition is correct. However, we agree that mentioning the key role of ILs as solvents is fundamental.

 

Question 2: We do not agree with the reviewer. The amount of water employed is not enough to change the conductivity of the sample. Otherwise the conductivity reported is measured after the aging of the samples in the oven.

 

Question 3: The name is correct. However, we accept the suggestion.

 

Thanks for your review. See attached document with responses to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be published after minor revision. Please provide the roughness values ​​for the scanned samples (AFM). Is there a correlation between these and  the contact angle values ?

Author Response

Question 1: The roughness values are given in Table S2. The contact angles are known to depend on the roughness values and on the chemical composition of the surfaces. Both doped samples exhibit higher contact angles than the non-doped ones. However, the roughness values do not follow the same trend, as one increases and the other decreases markedly upon doping. Therefore, as there is no direct correlation, we prefer not to discuss this aspect, as it might be be speculative.

Important note:

We realized that some CE values in Table 1 where wrong. We apologize for the error. We have now introduced the right values, which are higher than those initially indicated.

 

Thanks for your review. See attached document with responses to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx