A Study on the Conductivity and Infrared Spectroscopy of Elastic Polymer Composite Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents valuable research on enhancing the conductivity of silicon in elastic polymers, which could have important applications in electronics. However, improvements in the structure, critical analysis, and presentation of results are needed to strengthen the manuscript. I think addressing the suggested improvement areas will enhance the paper's clarity, impact, and scientific rigor.

1. The introduction should more clearly state the research question. It can be improved for better readability.

2. If feasible, include more comparative studies with existing materials to highlight the advantages of the proposed polymer-silicon composites (in the Results, Discussion, or Conclusion section).

3. The Discussion could be more critical, addressing both possible limitations of the study and suggestions for future research directions based on the outcome results.

4. The Conclusion generally summarizes the key findings of the study. It should provide a stronger statement on the potential research impact and potential applications. It could also briefly revisit the research question, summarizing how the results resolved it.

 

Figures, tables, formulas, edit: 

-              Figures and tables in general should be accompanied by more detailed descriptions explaining the key findings and their significance

-              Figures 1 and 2: scale is needed

-              Figures 5 and 6: axis description with units is needed

-              Table 1: it should not have any empty fields, unit should be in brackets (%) or [%]

-              Table 2: the unit of “Peak” is not clear

-              Figures 7 and 8: the vertical axis description should be corrected to match the style

-              Figures from 9 to 12: the axis description should be corrected to match the style with other figures

-              Lines 287-298: units require revision

-              Lines 301-310 are smaller font than the rest of the text

-              Letter mistake in heading 2.4 

-              Formula (2) is described as formula (1) in the text

 

 

The paper requires substantial revisions to improve clarity, critical analysis, and contextual understanding of the findings, particularly in the methods, results, and discussion sections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Consider having the manuscript professionally edited to address language issues and improve readability. Some sections contain minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that need revision. Exemplary general mistakes found in the text:

-              it should be “conductive polymers” (polymers that conduct electrical current) – not “conducting polymers”

 

-              adsorption or absorption? – the meaning is different but authors use it interchangeably 

Author Response

Comment1:The introduction should more clearly state the research question. It can be improved for better readability.

Respones1: The introduction has been revised to more clearly articulate the research questions and enhance readability.

Comment2: If feasible, include more comparative studies with existing materials to highlight the advantages of the proposed polymer-silicon composites (in the Results, Discussion, or Conclusion section).

Response2: The “Discussion” and “Conclusion” sections have been rewritten to emphasize the benefits of the proposed polymer-silicon composite.

Comment3: The Discussion could be more critical, addressing both possible limitations of the study and suggestions for future research directions based on the outcome results.

Response 3: This paper has been extensively revised to enhance the "Discussion" section by offering a more critical analysis. This includes addressing potential limitations of the study and proposing future research directions informed by the findings.

Comment 4: The Conclusion generally summarizes the key findings of the study. It should provide a stronger statement on the potential research impact and potential applications. It could also briefly revisit the research question, summarizing how the results resolved it.

Response 4: This paper has been significantly revised to make the "Conclusion" section more focused on the potential research impact and possible applications.

All other requirements has been modified in article.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors formed the silicon polymer doped with graphite. The experimental data of electrical resistivity were analyzed using calculation. This thorough analysis is scientifically meaningful. The authors found that increasing the doping concentration of graphite decreased the electrical resistivity. The findings in this study will be helpful for the readers working on conducting polymer. However, there are some concerns about the introduction and the discussion. If the authors appropriately revise the manuscript, this study will meet the criteria for the publication in applied sciences.

 

 

Comment 1: The authors formed silicon polymer doped with graphite. I am worried about the material structure. Please comment on the material structure: the graphite nanodot or the carbon substitution. What is the polymer structure? What is the structure of silicon?

 

Comment 2: In Figure 2, the slope of resistivity seems to be changed at ~78 degrees Celcius. What happens at this temperature?

 

Comment 3: The authors estimated quality factor from the dependence of resistivity on the carbon doping concentration (Figure 10). Is the acquired quality factor (4) better or worse? Please describe this by comparing the value of the authors’ polymer with those of other materials.

 

Comment 4: There are a lot of applications of polymers although the authors commented on only conducting polymer in the introduction section. For example, some studies reported important polymer research: polymer thermal switch (Nano Lett. 22, 6105 (2022).), nonvolatile polymer memory (Nano Lett. 11, 138 (2011).). The authors should comment on not only the conducting polymer but also various applications of polymers such as polymer thermal switch, etc. and cite the related studies to attract wide interest.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors formed silicon polymer doped with graphite. I am worried about the material structure. Please comment on the material structure: the graphite nanodot or the carbon substitution. What is the polymer structure? What is the structure of silicon?

Response 1: This paper has been significantly revised to provide detailed descriptions of both the polymer structure and the structure of silicon.

Comment 2: In Figure 2, the slope of resistivity seems to be changed at ~78 degrees Celcius. What happens at this temperature?

Reponse 2: The change in the slope of resistivity at 78 degrees Celsius is attributed to the melting of low-melting-point organic compounds within the composite material.

Comment 3: The authors estimated quality factor from the dependence of resistivity on the carbon doping concentration (Figure 10). Is the acquired quality factor (4) better or worse? Please describe this by comparing the value of the authors’ polymer with those of other materials.

Response 3: This paper has been significantly revised to offer an in-depth description of the value of the polymer developed in this study, as well as the value of other materials.

Comment 4: There are a lot of applications of polymers although the authors commented on only conducting polymer in the introduction section. For example, some studies reported important polymer research: polymer thermal switch (Nano Lett. 22, 6105 (2022).), nonvolatile polymer memory (Nano Lett. 11, 138 (2011).). The authors should comment on not only the conducting polymer but also various applications of polymers such as polymer thermal switch, etc. and cite the related studies to attract wide interest.

Response 4: This paper has been significantly revised to include content related to the practical aspects of producing flexible circuit boards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to see the corrected manuscript with changes marked (different color or highlights or document edited in the review mode). In this form, where no changes are marled, it is very hard to evaluate the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is improved.

Author Response

Comment 1: I would like to see the corrected manuscript with changes marked (different color or highlights or document edited in the review mode). In this form, where no changes are marled, it is very hard to evaluate the paper.

Response 1: I upload update paper remarked with blue color, please review it again.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are no marked file with highlight and a list of the revisions.

The authors just answered "they revised" in the response letter. I cannot see how they revised and based on what they revised.

Author Response

Comment 1: There are no marked file with highlight and a list of the revisions.

The authors just answered "they revised" in the response letter. I cannot see how they revised and based on what they revised.

Response 1: I upload update paper remarked with blue color, please review it again, thank you.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion the revised manuscript has been improved and can be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences

Author Response

Comment 1: No further comment

Response 1: I will upload the file again

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is properly revised.

If possible, some figures should be merged as one figure. But this is optional.

Author Response

Comment 1: If possible, some figures should be merged as one figure. But this is optional.

Response 1: I will upload the revised paper again base on reviewer's comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx