Low-Powered Photodetector Based on Two-Dimensional InS_0.3Se_0.7/WS₂ Heterostructure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript entitled “Low-powered photodetector based on two-dimensional InS_0.3Se_0.7/WS₂ heterostructure” by Kaiting Zhang et al. discussed about the photoelectric performance of the prepared InS_0.3Se_0.7/WS₂ vdW heterostructures, the subject of such manuscript is in general suitable for publication in Sustainability, however, certain important points need to be addressed before.

 

1. In line 56, the sentence begins with “Among these...” seems really long and a bit confusing at first glance, if I understand the authors’ argument correctly, in line 58, the conjunction “because” should be “because of”?

 

2. In line 65, the sentence begins with “It can responsive to the light...” sounds a bit wrong, and it should be corrected to “It can be responsive to light...”.

 

3. In line 71, as the authors describes, as I quote, that “the p-type InS_0.3Se_0.7 flakes... were... onto the SiO₂ substrates... The n-type monolayer WS₂ flakes... on the... p-type InS_0.3Se_0.7 flakes...”, however, in Fig. 1, the WS₂ flakes are clearly shown underneath the InS_0.3Se_0.7 flakes, which is very confusing. Which is on top and which is underneath? The authors need to clarify this further.

 

4. In line 85, what is the “R-T curves” and where is it exactly in Fig. 1? I don’t see any resistance curve or whatsoever in Fig. 1. Is it supposed to be “I-V curves”?

 

5. In line 93, the authors state, as I quote, that “the built-in electric field would facilitate the separation of the photo-generated electron-hole pairs and finally...”, however, in the introduction part in line 56, the authors also clearly explained that “the type II... significantly increase carrier recombination rate because (of) the built-in electric field”. This is very confusing to the readers: does the built-in electric field actually separate or recombine the electron-hole pairs?

 

6. In Fig. 1, what is the band diagram of this InS_0.3Se_0.7/WS₂ heterostructure? It would be better if the authors can include in Fig. 1 a band diagram showing the energy levels.

 

7. In line 99, “blue spheres and red spheres” should be “triangles”, or the authors need to change the triangles in Fig. 2(b).

 

8. In line 113, “by the source and drain” is somehow mistaken, I believe it should be changed to “by the drain and the source, respectively”.

 

9. A general question lies in the heterostructure material itself: why does the authors choose such a ration 0.3 : 0.7 as it is in InS_0.3Se_0.7? How did the authors decide to use such a S : Se ration? Is there any proof that such ratio is the best in performance? Furthermore, is there any possibility of using some other S : Se rations (for example 0.1 : 0.9, etc.), and how are their performances as heterojunctions compared to InS_0.3Se_0.7?

 

Overall, the results and discussion part of the manuscript is a bit weak and short. I suggest the authors to further develop this part by including the above suggested points.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript must be improved further with more experimental data, and with characterization of the heterostructures and fabricated devices. 

Ref but not limited to: 1) ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 33390−33398 2) Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 2, 1460–1465 3) J. Mater. Chem. C, 2017,5, 1494-1500 4) Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 6, 1901304

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revised manuscript entitled “Low-powered photodetector based on two-dimensional InS_0.3Se_0.7/WS₂ heterostructure” by Kaiting Zhang et al. discussed about the photoelectric performance of the prepared InS_0.3Se_0.7/WS₂ vdW heterostructures, the subject of such manuscript is in general suitable for publication in Sustainability, however, there are still a few minor imperfections which need to be addressed.

 

1. In line 38, “fphotoelectric” seems to be a slip of the pen. Please correct it to “photoelectric”. Also in the same line 38, “in single or multi-layer...” is missing one hyphen in “single”. Please correct it to “in single- or multi-layer...”.

 

2. In line 41, the full form of 2D “two-dimensional” appeared while the full form and abbreviation “two-dimensional (2D)” was sufficiently defined in line 32. Please delete the redundant full form “two-dimensional” here and any possible other redundancy hereafter.

 

3. In line 44, “combining of” does not seem to be a proper English collocation, please change it to “combining with”.

 

4. In line 108, “To further insight into...” also does not seem right, please rephrase it in a proper way.

 

5. In line 135, “which would play an important role...” sounds a bit over-assuring to me personally, would be better if changed to “which could play an important role...”.

 

Overall, the revised manuscript is in scientific aspect convincing to me and suitable for publication in its present form, however, in the aspect of English grammar and diction, there is still much room for improvement. I suggest the authors take some time to read through the manuscript thoroughly, and remove any possible mistakes in grammar and diction to further polish and perfect this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

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.