A Self-Color-Changing Film with Periodic Nanostructure for Anti-Counterfeit Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
11. The introduction section should be more specific toward the current work.
22 Classifications should be cited in Figure / Table with appropriate caption and added to the running manuscript.
33. Finite element methods have been used. So, the authors have to add which software/tools are used. And the authors have done any mesh independency test on the FE model.
44. Figures should be marge e.g. (Figure 3 and 4). Similar Authors can do the same things in all the figures.
55 The figure line should be in the same intensity as other compared lines.
66 In the parameter studies, the authors have analyzed W, L, and H separately. When the single parameter, i.e. W is considered, so what about the other parameters (L, H) boundary conditions. Are the authors seeing any combined effect over W, L, or H ? It is a very critical issue.
77. What are the core differences between Kuroiwa et al.(37) and the authors manuscript from the application point of view?
88. The overall length of the manuscript should be reduced.
99. In the conclusions section, the authors have to add some results, so the conclusion is more effective toward the outcomes.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer 1
We appreciate your kind consideration for reviewing and providing valuable feedback/suggestion for revision of our paper entitled “Self color-changing film: New Frontier of Enhanced Security and Anti-Counterfeit Packaging Using Nanoparticles and Color Analysis from Transmittance”. We have revised the manuscript according to your and the other reviewer’s comments/suggestion.
Thorin Theeradejvanichkul
Corresponding author
Point 1: The introduction section should be more specific toward the current work.
Response 1: We agree with this comment. The introduction in the reviewed version was more like a review paper than a scientific paper, so we revise it. We remove Tables 1 and 2 from the introduction and rewrite this section so it is more specific to the current work.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 2: Classifications should be cited in Figure/Table with appropriate caption and added to the running manuscript.
Response 2: We revise the introduction section. It is now shorter and more specific to the current work. We also remove insignificant Figure/Table.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 3: Finite element methods have been used. So, the authors have to add which software/tools are used. And the authors have done any mesh independency test on the FE model.
Response 3: In this paper, we used COMSOL Multiphysics as a simulation tool for all FEA cases. We also have performed some mesh independency tests on the FE model by scaling the mesh up to 50% larger and 50% smaller than the original size and found that the results were the same.
Subsection 2.3 of Concept and Structure Design Section: (Page 4).
Point 4: Figures should be marge e.g. (Figure 3 and 4). Similar Authors can do the same things in all the figures.
Response 4: We agree with this comment. We have removed non-essential figures such as Figures 1 and 2 and reassembled Figures 3 and 4 into new Figure 1.
Subsection 2.3 of Concept and Structure Design Section: (Page 4).
Point 5: The figure line should be in the same intensity as other compared lines.
Response 5: We replot those figures with equal line intensity.
Subsection 3.1 of Results and Discussion Section: (Page 5-7, Figure 2-7.)
Point 6: In the parameter studies, the authors have analyzed W, L, and H separately. When the single parameter, i.e. W is considered, so what about the other parameters (L, H) boundary conditions. Are the authors seeing any combined effect over W, L, or H ? It is a very critical issue.
Response 6: We apologize for the misunderstanding. We start with the condition for W, L, and H to be 110 nm, then adjust the parameters individually, beginning with W. We find that the optimal value of W to cause the film to behave as LPF is 110 nm. Next, we adjusted the parameter L using the best W value from the previous study (W = 110 nm). Results found that the best L to cause the film to behave like a LPF is 140 nm. Finally, we adjusted H using the best W and L values ​​from the previous studies (W = 110 nm and L = 140 nm). The optimal value of H for the film to create LPF is130 nm, so the final result was, from the combined effect of all three parameters, W = 110 nm, L = 140 nm and H = 130 nm.
Subsection 3.1 of Results and Discussion Section: (Page 5-7, Figure 2-7.)
Point 7: What are the core differences between Kuroiwa et al.(37) and the authors manuscript from the application point of view?
Response 7: We revise the paper to clarify this point.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 8: The overall length of the manuscript should be reduced.
Response 8: We agree with this comment. We revise some sections and get rid of figures/tables that are unnecessary.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2) and Subsection 2.3 of Concept and Structure Design Section: (Page 4).
Point 9: In the conclusions section, the authors have to add some results, so the conclusion is more effective toward the outcomes.
Response 9: We agree with this comment and add more details to the conclusion.
Conclusion and Future Work Section: (Page 14-15).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a self color-changing film aimed for enhanced security and anti-counterfeit packaging. However, it should be rewrited to get the standard as a science paper.
1. Too many details are missing.
2. The type setting for　Figures is　terrible。
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer 2
We appreciate your kind consideration for reviewing and providing valuable feedback/suggestion for revision of our paper entitled “Self color-changing film: New Frontier of Enhanced Security and Anti-Counterfeit Packaging Using Nanoparticles and Color Analysis from Transmittance”. We have revised the manuscript according to your and the other reviewer’s comments/suggestion.
Thorin Theeradejvanichkul
Corresponding author
Point 1: The authors present a self color-changing film aimed for enhanced security and anti-counterfeit packaging. However, it should be rewrited to get the standard as a science paper.
- Too many details are missing.
Response 1: We agree with this comment. The introduction in the reviewed version was more like a review paper than a scientific paper, so we revise it. We also remove Tables 1 and 2 from the introduction and revise this section to be specific to the current work. The title in changed from “Self color-changing film: New Frontier of Enhanced Security and Anti-Counterfeit Packaging Using Nanoparticles and Color Analysis from Transmittance” to “A Self Color-changing Film with Periodic Nanostructure for Anti-Counterfeit Application.”
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 2: The type setting for Figures is terrible.
Response 2: We try our best to rearrange/format the appearance/placement of the figures on each page.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript report on a so-call self color-changing film in which aluminum nanoparticles are arranged in an array on a two-dimensional plane embedded in PET. The film has a simple structure and the color-changing phenomenon can be observed clearly by the naked eyes, and thus is potentially applicable in the fields such as anti-counterfeiting. The work is sound and can be considered by Applied Science after a major revision.
The following issues should be addressed.
1. The title should be changed to reflect the content of manuscript more specifically. The current title looks like a title for a review paper.
2. Introduction can be shortened. The second paragraph can be mostly deleted as its content duplicates those in Table 1. The last paragraph of introduction can be omitted as well.
3. The details for materials and films preparation is missing which should be added.
4. There are many formatting problems and syntax errors in the manuscript. For instance
a) The title for Table 1 is missing.
b) Reference section should be carefully checked to correct any formatting problems.
c) Line 176 "In our research, we study the plasmonic behavior behavior of metals from transmittance.".
d) “the naked eyes” rather than “the naked eye”.
e). Many sentences should be polished.
f) “In 2021, Saad, F. A. et al. presented polyester fabric as a new anti-counterfeiting technique [33].”. Material or technique?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer 3
We appreciate your kind consideration for reviewing and providing valuable feedback/suggestion for revision of our paper entitled “Self color-changing film: New Frontier of Enhanced Security and Anti-Counterfeit Packaging Using Nanoparticles and Color Analysis from Transmittance”. We have revised the manuscript according to your and the other reviewer’s comments/suggestion.
Thorin Theeradejvanichkul
Corresponding author
Point 1: The title should be changed to reflect the content of manuscript more specifically. The current title looks like a title for a review paper.
Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we decide to change the title from “Self color-changing film: New Frontier of Enhanced Security and Anti-Counterfeit Packaging Using Nanoparticles and Color Analysis from Transmittance” to “A Self Color-changing Film with Periodic Nanostructure for Anti-Counterfeit Application.”
The Title: (Page 1).
Point 2: Introduction can be shortened. The second paragraph can be mostly deleted as its content duplicates those in Table 1. The last paragraph of introduction can be omitted as well.
Response 2: We agree with this comment. The introduction can be shortened, so we revise our article. We remove Tables 1 and 2 from the introduction and rewrite the introduction so it reflects our work better.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 3: The details for materials and films preparation is missing which should be added.
Response 3: We agree with this comment and add more details to the description of the film.
Subsection 2.2 of Design of the Proposed Film Section: (Page 3, Line 128-138)
Point 4: There are many formatting problems and syntax errors in the manuscript. For instance
- a) The title for Table 1 is missing.
- b) Reference section should be carefully checked to correct any formatting problems.
- c) Line 176 "In our research, we study the plasmonic behavior behavior of metals from transmittance.".
- d) “the naked eyes” rather than “the naked eye”.
e). Many sentences should be polished.
- f) “In 2021, Saad, F. A. et al. presented polyester fabric as a new anti-counterfeiting technique [33].”. Material or technique?
Response 4:
- a) We revise the introduction and remove Tables 1.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
- b) and e) We recheck and find some editing errors. So we correct them.
- c) We agree with this and revise it accordingly.
Subsection 2.2 of Design of the Proposed Film Section: (Page 3, Line 124)
- d) We actually looked up this term in the “Merriam-Webster” online dictionary. The correct term and the most commonly used term in “the naked eye” without an “s” in the end. The term “the Naked Eyes” with an “s” is reserved for a 1980’s musical band under the same name. But if you insist on using “the naked eyes” with an “s”, we’d be more than happy to oblige.
- f) We apologize for the misunderstanding. In 2021, Saad, F. A. et al. presented a new technique to prepare polyester fabric as a new anti-counterfeiting [33] material.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2, Line 35-36)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In this paper, the authors report a self chromic film based on frequency selective surface. The film adopts aluminum nano cube design. They are arranged in a plane array with equal distance from each other. The results show that the intersection of transmittance and the reflectance curves causes the film to change its color automatically when flipped. I believe that publication of the manuscript may be considered only after the following issues have been resolved.
1. There are too many keywords in this paper. The author needs to simplify and control it within 6.
2. There are too many pictures in this article, some of which are not particularly important. The author should put them in the attachment.
3. Many typesetting and writing methods of articles are very different from scientific papers. Authors need to download relevant journals of nanomaterials and make a big adjustment to their papers. Such as, tables 1 and 2 are placed in the introduction, which is very inappropriate. The author needs to make adjustments. Moreover, table 2 is the work of others. Is such a large report appropriate?
4. Figure 1 is a very simple work that has been reported for a long time. The author's analysis as a schematic diagram is inappropriate and should be placed in the annex or deleted.
5. Figure 2 is calculated by the author? Or borrow someone else's work? The author is suggested to delete or put it in the attachment.
6. Figure 3 and Figure 4 are suggested to be combined together, which are pictures of model design.
7. This paper should be a report without experimental work. Therefore, the author's introduction needs to be greatly adjusted. We should introduce more relevant mechanisms and related simulation work, rather than a large number of experimental work. Some related mechanisms, such as surface plasmon and antireflection mechanism, need to be introduced.
8. The introduction can be improved. The articles related to the optical properties of micro nano structures should be added such as RSC Adv., 2022, 12(13), 7821-7829; Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2021, 23, 26864-26873; RSC Adv., 7(2017) 25314–25324; RSC Adv., 8(2018) 42233–42245; Electrochim. Acta, 168(2015) 337–345.
9. Some pictures with similar results need to be combined by the author.
10. The curves in figure 5-10 are not clear enough, so the author needs to redraw them.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Dear Reviewer 4
We appreciate your kind consideration for reviewing and providing valuable feedback/suggestion for revision of our paper entitled “Self color-changing film: New Frontier of Enhanced Security and Anti-Counterfeit Packaging Using Nanoparticles and Color Analysis from Transmittance”. We have revised the manuscript according to your and the other reviewer’s comments/suggestion.
Thorin Theeradejvanichkul
Corresponding author
Point 1: There are too many keywords in this paper. The author needs to simplify and control it within 6.
Response 1: We agree with this and revise it accordingly.
Keywords section: (Page 1)
Point 2: There are too many pictures in this article, some of which are not particularly important. The author should put them in the attachment.
Response 2: A significant improvement is made to the introduction section. We make it shorter, more specific and remove insignificant pictures or tables.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 3: Many typesetting and writing methods of articles are very different from scientific papers. Authors need to download relevant journals of nanomaterials and make a big adjustment to their papers. Such as, tables 1 and 2 are placed in the introduction, which is very inappropriate. The author needs to make adjustments. Moreover, table 2 is the work of others. Is such a large report appropriate?
Response 3: We agree with this comment. The introduction in the reviewed version was more like a review paper than a scientific paper, so we made an adjustment to our article. We remove Tables 1 and 2 from the introduction and revise them to be more specific to the current work.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 4: Figure 1 is a very simple work that has been reported for a long time. The author's analysis as a schematic diagram is inappropriate and should be placed in the annex or deleted.
Response 4: A significant improvement is made to the introduction section. We make it shorter, more specific and remove insignificant pictures or tables.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 5: Figure 2 is calculated by the author? Or borrow someone else's work? The author is suggested to delete or put it in the attachment.
Response 5: A major revision of the introduction section is made. It is now shorter, and more specific. We also remove insignificant pictures and tables.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 6: Figure 3 and Figure 4 are suggested to be combined together, which are pictures of model design.
Response 6: We agree with this comment. We remove some non-essential figures such as Figures 1 and 2 and reassembled Figures 3 and 4 into new Figure 1.
Subsection 2.3 of Concept and Structure Design Section: (Page 4).
Point 7: This paper should be a report without experimental work. Therefore, the author's introduction needs to be greatly adjusted. We should introduce more relevant mechanisms and related simulation work, rather than a large number of experimental work. Some related mechanisms, such as surface plasmon and antireflection mechanism, need to be introduced.
Response 7: We agree with this comment and add more details to the description of the mechanism of the film.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 8: The introduction can be improved. The articles related to the optical properties of micro nano structures should be added such as RSC Adv., 2022, 12(13), 7821-7829; Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2021, 23, 26864-26873; RSC Adv., 7(2017) 25314–25324; RSC Adv., 8(2018) 42233–42245; Electrochim. Acta, 168(2015) 337–345.
Response 8: We do some further literature reviews and include more recent publications to the references [34-37]. The articles you recommend are beneficial in improving our introduction. However, there are some differences among those articles and our work. Since graphene has good optical properties and can be engineered for surface plasmon to enhance light absorption. However, our work does not need light-absorbing properties. Instead, we want to create LPF either for light to pass through or to reflect as much as possible.
Introduction section: (Page 1-2).
Point 9: Some pictures with similar results need to be combined by the author.
Response 9: We agree with this comment. We remove similar figures such as Figures 17 and 18.
Subsection 3.1 of Results and Discussion Section: (Page 13)
Point 10: The curves in figure 5-10 are not clear enough, so the author needs to redraw them.
Response 10: We replot both Figures with equal line intensity.
Subsection 3.1 of Results and Discussion Section: (Page 5-7, Figure 2-7.)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
When the mesh size changes, the result always changes. We have to find the optimal mesh size ( reduction in solution time and minimum changes in output results).
When authors have changed 50% mesh size results are the same, How is it possible? The authors have to do again FE analysis.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer 1
We appreciate your kind consideration for reviewing and providing valuable feedback/suggestion for revision of our paper entitled “A Self Color-Changing Film with Periodic Nanostructure for Anti-Counterfeit Application”. We have revised the manuscript according to your and the other reviewer’s comments/suggestion.
Thorin Theeradejvanichkul
Corresponding author
Point 1: When the mesh size changes, the result always changes. We have to find the optimal mesh size (reduction in solution time and minimum changes in output results).
When authors have changed 50% mesh size results are the same, how is it possible? The authors have to do again FE analysis.
Response 1: We apologize for the misunderstanding. The results weren't the same. There were slight differences that we considered insignificant.
We agree that when the mesh size changes, the results will change accordingly.
However, the critical question is, which mesh size is right for reliable results? Fortunately, COMSOL has a tool to tell us if the mesh size is a proper size. We call this a “mesh quality”. The value of such is between 0 and 1, with 1 being the highest quality and 0 being the lowest.
In this paper, we use tetrahedral mesh, which has the best quality when the tetrahedron has the same length on each side.
To determine the mesh size, we must set the maximum possible size in the software. Then the software will automatically generate a mesh. The following example illustrates it more clearly.
We have experimented with 50% and 150% of the initial size (100%).
We found that the differences were very minor because these mesh sizes still had similar quality. But the simulation in the 50% mesh case took a lot longer to complete because there were more meshes in this case.
But if we resize the mesh to be ten times larger, the result will change significantly because the mesh is of low quality. From the graph, it can be seen that the initial size (100%) gives the smoothest graph with the least volatility.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In general the authors have carefully addressed this referee's concerns. However, there are still many formatting problems in the references section. The authors should carefully revise the references section before accpetance of this manuscript. For instance, the information in Ref 2 is incomplete. Almost every reference should be revised to provide journal name, issue, page etc. in a correct format. And it is odd that some references have a DOI while other haven't.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer 3
We appreciate your kind consideration for reviewing and providing valuable feedback/suggestion for revision of our paper entitled “A Self Color-Changing Film with Periodic Nanostructure for Anti-Counterfeit Application”. We have revised the manuscript according to your and the other reviewer’s comments/suggestion.
Thorin Theeradejvanichkul
Corresponding author
Point 1: In general the authors have carefully addressed this referee's concerns. However, there are still many formatting problems in the references section. The authors should carefully revise the references section before accpetance of this manuscript. For instance, the information in Ref 2 is incomplete. Almost every reference should be revised to provide journal name, issue, page etc. in a correct format. And it is odd that some references have a DOI while other haven't.
Response 1: We apologize for the mistake. We've rechecked with caution and made the format correct. We have also added DOI to every reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Accept.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Dear Reviewer 4
We appreciate your kind consideration for reviewing and providing valuable feedback/suggestion for revision of our paper. We are grateful and honoured to receive such an insightful review from you.
Thorin Theeradejvanichkul
Corresponding author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
