Theoretical and Experimental Study of Particle Distribution from Magnetron Sputtering with Masks for Accurate Thickness Profile Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewed manuscript describes theoretical approaches and experimental results of a new study on methods for creating structured coatings. The authors of the study developed a theory that describes the processes of formation of structures as a result of sputtering of the target material. Experiments have confirmed the validity of theoretical concepts. I believe that this is an interesting manuscript that fully corresponds to the subject of the magazine. As a comment, I would point out that figures 7 and 8 should indicate the experimental errors and simulation curves should take these errors into account.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Referee Report
on paper “ Theoretical and experimental study of particle distribution from magnetron sputtering with masks for accurate thickness profile control“
by authors Yingna Shi, Qiushi Huang, Runze Qi , Zhengxiang Shen, Zhong Zhang and Zhanshan Wang
submitted to Coatings
This article focuses on improving the technology of magnetron sputtering using masks. The authors set a goal to control the contour of the resulting particle and successfully achieved this goal. The article presents the results of simulation and experiment. The article presents the results of sputtering modeling and experiment, which are fantastically well coordinated. This indicates the high quality of modeling and experiment and the high qualifications of the authors. The article is written in an accessible and understandable way. Modeling, experiment and results are described in detail and accurately, although grammar errors are encountered in the text.
Despite the high quality, the article lacks a scientific component. IN present form it seems like a very good technical report. Given the high practical relevance of the work, I believe that the article may be acceptable for publication in Coatings after several improvements.
So, my recommendation is a minor revision.
- Please check the text again for fingerprints and errors.
- The introduction is focused on the problem of controlling the shape and counter of particles using magnetron sputtering. However, there are many other methods that allow you to accurately control the size and shape of particles. For example, the authors did not consider controlled electrodeposition using masks, templates, and without them [DOI: 1149/2.1001904jes, DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.07.001] or cathodic arc evaporation [DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2016.10.061] or deposition with electromagnetic venetian blind plasma filter [DOI: 10.1016/j.tsf.2017.07.050]. Please consider these methods in the introduction and give an explanation of exactly why magnetron sputtering was chosen to solve the problem.
- Page 6 describes a method for determining the growth rate of a coating by measuring the height of a step. Obviously, the authors consider that the speed is constant. Figures 7 and 8 confirm this. The height of the particles is the same or decreases due to the distribution along the contour. However, in Figure 9 you can see that the height of the particles obtained with a diameter of 6 is 3-4 times greater than particles height for diameter 3, if we take into account the color scale of the photos. Although the profile does not confirm this.
It is necessary to explain what profile normalization means. Please explain what is the reason for the increase in the deposition rate with a larger diameter. Is this trend consistent for hole diameter 10?
- Conclusion should be improved. The conclusions in this form do not contain a clear description of the results obtained, but contain only a rationale for the relevance of article topic and a description of the work performed. The most important results and or clear recommendations for controlling magnetron sputtering should be in the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript « Theoretical and experimental study of particle distribution from magnetron sputtering with masks for accurate thickness profile control” by Yingna Shi et al. present a study to deposit coating with limiting the roughness in mirror application.
The manuscript, gathering modelling and experiments bring interesting ideas, but is badly structured, and is really difficult to read. Before publications major revisions are needed.
- the structure of the manuscript need improvements: e.g. there is not “results and discussion” section, the results come at different time in the manuscript, even in the description of the methodology. The authors need to identify each section, and then present the results. Please use a common structure: introduction, modelling, materials and methods, results and discussion, conclusion
- The main message of the paper is not clear. The authors claim that this is a systematic study, in their precise conditions. They need to take a step back on their results and give more general conclusion.
- The inclusive writing is used almost all along the manuscript (“we conducted”, …) which is not acceptable for scientific paper, please use passive form.
- The model is based on several assumptions, with for instance the ballistic sputtering of species (mean free path of 85mm), but the working pressure is not given.
- The information of the mask are missing: what is the thickness of the mask? How it is made (in experiments) ? The Figure 6 and especially 6a is not clear at all. It is a photo of an experimental sample, but why there are half circles? All this section must be rewritten
- In the introduction, it would be useful to give a figure of the differential deposition and profile coating.
- The author say that there are depositing silicon, but the photograph of the target (Fig 1) is not silicon.
- Information are missing regarding the experiments: Ar flow rate, target current or power, working pressure.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I suggested a lot of correction, and they all have been done. The manuscript is much better, and easier to read. I thank the authors for the work done.
I recommend it for publication.
