Two-Dimensional Nanomaterials for Boosting the Performance of Organic Solar Cells
, Xiangguo Li, Qian Zhang and Jing ShuaiRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript summarized recent successful applications of 2D materials, including graphene, black phosphorus, transition metal dichalcogenides, and g-C3N4, etc., adapted in the charge transporting layer, the active layer, and the electrode of the OSCs for boosting the PCE and stability of the devices. Additionally, the challenges, commercialization potentials, and prospects for the further development of 2D materials-based OSCs are outlined. The obtained results show well. However, there are some points, which should be clarity.
- The English should be carefully revised throughout a manuscript
- The part of Abstract should be improved further.
- The authors just retold the story of many published papers with no emphasis and no conclusive sentences in the article. The authors did not exhibit their own opinion and ideas about the topic. Please revise
- In the perspective part, more discussion about this future direction on the topic is preferred. It will be better if the authors can provide detailed solutions towards current challenges.
- The potential applications such as solar to steam and water evaporation-induced-electricity generation (Nano Energy, 2020, 68, 104324, Nano Energy, 2021, 85, 105979; Journal of Power Sources, 2020, 448, 227388) should be mentioned.
This manuscript can be considered for publication only when the above-mention questions were especially stressed in the revised manuscript. The referee would like to review a revised version of this paper in the future.
Author Response
Response to the Comments
Point 1:The English should be carefully revised throughout a manuscript
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised the grammar mistakes in new version of the manuscript.
Point 2：The part of Abstract should be improved further.
Response 2: Thanks for your advice. We have modified the abstract of the manuscript, as indicated in the new version. (Line 8-22)
Point 3：The authors just retold the story of many published papers with no emphasis and no conclusive sentences in the article. The authors did not exhibit their own opinion and ideas about the topic. Please revise.
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. According to the suggestion, in the new version, we have added more conclusive sentences to express our opinions on the topic of application of novel 2D materials in the CTL and active layer of the OSCs to enhance the efficiency and stability of the devices, as shown in the manuscript. (Line 61-64, line 245-247, line 368-371, line 511-515)
Point 4：In the perspective part, more discussion about this future direction on the topic is preferred. It will be better if the authors can provide detailed solutions towards current challenges.
Response 4: Thanks for your valuable advice. We have added more discussion on the topic of the possible solutions towards the current challenges of the 2D nanomaterials applied in the OSCs, as depicted in the last part. (Line 630-643)
Point 5：The potential applications such as solar to steam and water evaporation-induced-electricity generation (Nano Energy, 2020, 68, 104324, Nano Energy, 2021, 85, 105979; Journal of Power Sources, 2020, 448, 227388) should be mentioned.
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. We have cited two related articles in our introduction part as you suggested.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This review manuscript compiles 96 papers about the nanoflakes of 2D materials in organic solar cell researches. I think highly of the authors' efforts, but I think there are many points to improve.
- My impression is this is just a compilation of papers with nice-looking figures. Some "meat" is necessary as a review.
- As for #1, I suggest to add parameters of the 2D materials appearing in this review. work funcitons, valence and conduction band levels, surface energy (to evaluate wettability to organic solvents), easiness of doping and recommended dopants, dopants' binding energy, carrier mobility etc.
- Many mistakes and problems in English. line 59 SuiTable, line 130 is difficult to understand the meaning, lines 600-601 "On the other hand" appears twice.
- It is understandable to pick up important papers on each material (phosphorene, MoS2, graphene, Mxene, etc.) , but the readers will get benefit if another axis of the story, i.e., strategies for choosing the materials and processes, is included in this review. My suggestion is to add substantial amount of this "another axis" before the Conclusion.
Author Response
Response to the Comments
Point 1: My impression is this is just a compilation of papers with nice-looking figures. Some "meat" is necessary as a review.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment, we have added more opinions and conclusive sentences to enrich the content of this review, as shown in the new version of the manuscript. (Line 61-64, line 245-247, line 368-371, line 511-515)
Point 2：As for #1, I suggest to add parameters of the 2D materials appearing in this review. work funcitons, valence and conduction band levels, surface energy (to evaluate wettability to organic solvents), easiness of doping and recommended dopants, dopants' binding energy, carrier mobility etc.
Response 2: Thanks for your advice. According to the suggestion, we have listed the key parameters of the novel 2D materials involved in this review in Table 1.
Point 3：Many mistakes and problems in English. line 59 SuiTable, line 130 is difficult to understand the meaning, lines 600-601 "On the other hand" appears twice.
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. The mistakes have been corrected in the manuscript.
Point 4：It is understandable to pick up important papers on each material (phosphorene, MoS2, graphene, Mxene, etc.) , but the readers will get benefit if another axis of the story, i.e., strategies for choosing the materials and processes, is included in this review. My suggestion is to add substantial amount of this "another axis" before the Conclusion.
Response 4: Thanks for your advice. We have made a further discussion on the strategies to choose the suitable 2D materials applied in the different positions (active layer, HTL, ETL, and electrode) of the OSCs in details in the conclusion part. (Line 651-656)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article deals with the current and important topic of the application of nanomaterials in organic solar cells. Organic solar cells are still being intensively researched and newer and more efficient photovoltaic structures are being developed. Despite the next generations of cells (dye sensitized and perovskite solar cells), they are still hopes for a breakthrough and development of the photovoltaic industry.
The article is prepared correctly and is a logical whole. Nevertheless, it requires some supplementation and graphic improvement:
1) There is a lack of information on the use of thin films produced by vacuum methods (PVD and ALD) in organic solar cells as:
- As a Transition metal oxides in OPV
- As a Encapsulation of OPV
- As a TCO in OPV (eg. AZO)
It would be worth supplementing literature with some items, e.g.:
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoms.2019.10.001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2019.112161, DOI: 10.37190/oa200412, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.03.169, https://doi.org/10.1515/phys-2016-0017, DOI: 10.5277/oa150412
2) Some graphics are of poor quality:
- Figure 1 should be better quality
After introducing the corrections, the article will be a new, interesting source of information for readers
Author Response
Response to the Comments
Point 1: There is a lack of information on the use of thin films produced by vacuum methods (PVD and ALD) in organic solar cells as:
- As a Transition metal oxides in OPV
- As a Encapsulation of OPV
- As a TCO in OPV (eg. AZO)
- It would be worth supplementing literature with some items,.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We have cited the related articles in our introduction part as you suggested.
Point 2：Some graphics are of poor quality.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. The unclear figures have been replaced in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have introduced the applications of 2D nanomaterials in organic solar cells. The manuscript is well-written and organized. It also provided sufficient information and knowledge that could attract researchers in the related fields. Therefore, I suggested that this work can be considered to publish in Coatings. However, in the final manuscript, I hope to see more perspectives of the authors about the future of 2D nanomaterials in organic solar cells
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to the Comments
Point 1: I hope to see more perspectives of the authors about the future of 2D nanomaterials in organic solar cells.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have added more discussion on the topic of the possible solutions towards the current challenges of the 2D nanomaterials applied in the OSCs, as depicted in the last part.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made a clear effort to address my comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript is suitable for publication.