A Study on Improving the Sensitivity of Indirect X-ray Detectors by Adding Hybrid Perovskite Quantum Dots
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
By adding formamidinium lead trihalide perovskite quantum dots (FAPbBr3 PeQDs) to the commonly used donor material P3HT and acceptor material PC71BM layers, this manuscript fabricated an indirect X- ray detector. When OA/OAm ligand was replaced by a pyridine ligand, the sensitivity of detector increased by 28 %. The manuscript has some drawbacks that should be addressed:
- The details of initial FAPbBr3 PeQDs should be made up in the manuscript, such as how did you synthesize, what was the size distribution and structure.
- How did you achieve the ligand exchange with different time should be clarified in this article? Did you fabricate three devices and replace ligand under different hours, or one device but exchange multiple times? If that is the latter, how did the treat the sealed device?
- The OA/OAm ligand was replaced by pyridine. Why don’t you directly use the ligand-exchanged perovskite quantum dots at the starting fabrication step for enhancing its sensitivity?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors studied the characteristics of an organic X-ray detector by using composite of P3HT, PC71BM, and FAPbBr3 PeQDs. It was observed that the performance of the detector was improved by adding FAPbBr3 PeQDs to the P3HT:PC71BM active layer. The optical properties and device performance were comprehensively characterized. Although this work show some interest to the related readers, the follows should be addressed for the publication.
(1) The physical model that improves the sensitivity need to be shown, i.e. band diagram.
(2) I am sure the stability is a problem. Therefore, the stability upon X-ray irradiation dose need to be given.
(3) Please compare the X-ray irradiation tolerance with those inorganic semiconductors, i.e. Si, SiC, CdZnTe, (i.e. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2004.829437.) and diamond. (i.e.10.1080/26941112.2021.2017758).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for the preparation of a very nicely readable article. It was a pleasure to review it. I am looking forward to your replies.
Overall:
The article describes characterization measurements of the light absorption and IV curve of organic layers with different concentrations of PeQD. Coupled to a scintillator, these can be used for indirect detection of X-rays. The authors compare layers with different amounts of the quantum dots. The best sensitivity was found if 1 mg PeQD were used. Higher amounts lead to an increase in resistivity, which is explained by introduction of defects to the lattice of the sensor. The article is well structured and the English is excellent.
However, a crucial weakness of the work is that all values are presented without proper uncertainty determination. It is not possible to compare values if the uncertainties are not known. No conclusion can be drawn from such a comparison. I would thus recommend a careful revision, identifying and presenting each value with its corresponding error.
Detailed comments:
- The error estimation is missing. The following quantities should be assigned an uncertainty.
- PeQDs amounts – How well can you measure/control the amount on implanted PeQDs?
- Jsc – Since the error is extracted from measured curves, the error could be assessed by a line fit around V=0.
- Rs – Same as above, here the fit error of the slope of a linear fit could give the error estimate.
- Please also add error bars to Fig. 5 (b), Fig. 7 (b), Fig. 9 (a) and (b)
- Page 2: 3rd paragraph/Fig. 1: … active layer … à Is active layer the correct work ? Maybe, it would be better to write “(light) sensitive layer”
Kind regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Your questions improved the quality of the manuscript.
Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, dear Editor,
thank you for cosidering my suggestions. The manuscript can be accepted as is.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Your questions improved the quality of the manuscript.
Thank you.
