High-Temperature Energy Storage Properties of Bi0.5Na0.5TiO3-0.06BaTiO3 Thin Films
, Nathalie Lemée, Jamal Belhadi, Françoise Le Marrec, Anna Cantaluppi and Abdelilah Lahmar *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments/suggestions for authors:
1-check whole the manuscript as typography errors: for example: KV/cm??? it should be : kV/cm and more...
2-Introduction must support all your results and conclusion, but its not completed, make it more specific on your topic, and add more references for example: https://doi.org/10.3390/mi14051081 check this article and use it in your introduction, and more like this to rich your whole manuscript.
3-make the last paragraph of the introduction more professional, write about the novelty of your research. now you just explain the research but I cannot understand the propose of the research. what you have new for readers?
4-describe all the equipments with company and model and methods you used in this resaech, for example what method did you use for XRD?
5-Figure 1 is not clear, especially c,d even I cannot recognize the elements...
6-explain how you select the methodlogy and design your experiments for example why you used 1kHz, 10kHz, 100kHz 1 MHz??
7-Figure 4 must be completed, below 10E-6 J, its just dots it should be continuous curve, check it again.
8- use this article for analysis your polarization/TAFEL/Corrosion curves/plots and use it in your references, some part of your results need to check again: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/met13020367
9- If you used AI for the manuscript, write it in your acknowledgement, if not check again the whole manuscript to avoid inflict some sentences and facts to the readers for example I don't like this kind of sentences: This result makes the BNT-BT film prepared by the 265 CSD, one of the best candidates for high temperature energy storage capacitor.
let readers make desition on the applications of your research.
Best regards,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish needs to check again.
Author Response
We thank the referee for their time and input and for their positive comments and constructive suggestions. All changes have been added and highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
The reply to the reviwer's comments is enclosed as attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall the authors have done a great job on the preparation and analysis of BNT-BT thin films. The results are well addressed, logically presented. Measurements on structural and dielectric properties are well designed, and supported adequately to the conclusion. There are small minor issues before being accepted.
1. Please double check the caption of Figure 1.
2. It would also be nice to attach the apparatus/picture of the probe system for leakage current properties.
3. Line 148, BNT-BT was written as NBT-BT.
4. For samples before dielectric spectrum tests, are the samples dried thoroughly? Moisture has a huge impact on dielectric tests, increase the dielectric constant and creates a loss peak. The uprising of e' and the peaks in e'' would probably cause by moisture. I would suggest do in-situ heating-cooling-heating with the measuremnents on. More discussions please see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.142490.
5. Please double check Figure 6 caption.
6. Considering of the results of D-E loop of BNT-BT(PLD), I would suggest to run XRD at different temperature.
7. Please explain why the energy density of BNT-BT(PLD) increases from 30 to 60 °C.
8. Considering the more ferroelectric loss of PLD than CSD, can that be caused by charge injection due to the poor surface condition? Charge injection creates loss at high temperatures and high fields, and happens between electrodes and the surface of the dielectric materials, especially those with defects. Please see: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c07404, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.353789.
Author Response
We thank the referee for their time and input and for their positive comments and constructive suggestions. All changes have been added and highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
The reply to the reviwer's comments is enclosed as attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDue to the fact that the authors didn't address my comments on the last version and submitted a new version with a lot of errors, I do NOT recommend this manuscript for publishing. Even still there are two figure 4 in the manuscript????? It shows they didn't check the captions as well as. still, KV is incorrect....
The authors talk about polarization text in the manuscript, but in the response letter, they said, there is no corrosion text in the present study. even, though the authors are not eligible for knowing the corrosion behaviour. I recommend adding new author/s who are experts in corrosion. However, I give them a reference for checking how to analysis the results but they never used it.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English needs minor editing.
Author Response
We apologize to the reviewer for this misunderstanding, we believed that the reviewer is talking about electrochemical corrosion, galvanic corrosion, or that observed in metals by the reaction of oxygen and water and forming an oxide layer on the surface of the metal and alloys.! As we work only with solid ferroelectric materials (dielectrics and not metals) we did not well understand the question!
We have just realized that the reviwer is talking about "Stress corrosion cracking" also called static fatigue.
We have added this information in this second revision and have included the suggested references by the reviwer in addition to another one about ferroelectric BaTiO3 material.
We have also corrected small forgotten typos.
All changes are in bleu color (see the revised manuscript).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this new submitted version, the authors addressed all my comments and suggestions, now the quality of the manuscript is in the scope of the Journal, I recommend this manuscript for publishing after editor’s decision.
