Next Article in Journal
Influence of Initial Structural Dimensions of Plates on Welding Distortion
Next Article in Special Issue
On the Thermally Induced Interfacial Behavior of Thin Two-Dimensional Hexagonal Quasicrystal Films with an Adhesive Layer
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Influencing Residual Stresses in Cold Expansion and Their Effects on Fatigue Life—A Review
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Water-Soluble Biomass Resist Materials Based on Polyglucuronic Acid for Eco-Friendly Photolithography

Coatings 2023, 13(12), 2038; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings13122038
by Sayaka Miura 1, Yuna Hachikubo 1, Rio Yamagishi 1, Mano Ando 1 and Satoshi Takei 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Coatings 2023, 13(12), 2038; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings13122038
Submission received: 2 November 2023 / Revised: 29 November 2023 / Accepted: 1 December 2023 / Published: 3 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Analysis of Structure and Mechanical Properties of Coatings)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Satoshi Takei and the coauthors developed a water-soluble biomass resist material based on polyglucuronate derivatives for eco-friendly photolithography. Exposure sensitivity, film thickness, mechanical properties and surface Zeta potential were investigated. This manuscript could be accepted after addressing the following issues:

1.     The background information is not enough. Why polyglucuronic acid? background and recent works should be introduced.

2.     On line 100, “the three derivatives with photosensitive acrylic and hydroxy groups at molar ratios of 32:68, 26:74, and 20:80, respectively.” Where are the ratios come from? The exact ratios of acrylic and hydroxy groups should deviate from the chemical inputs for their different chemical activities.

3.     On line 178-180, how to calculate the sensitivity? Why film thickness could be utilized for sensitivity? No increase in thickness does mean the finish of chemical reactions. Some chemical characterization methods, such as XPS, FTIR or UV-Vis, should be used to investigate what happened in the film.

4.     “The deviation from the median value of 991 nm was 8.0%” Is it better than 1.9% from previous biomass resist materials? Please have this section reorganized.

5.     Error bar should be added in Figure 4.

6.     In Section 3.3 and 3.5, background, and current development should be provided in the introduction, instead of after your data and mixed in discussion.

7.     References should be added for discussion on Line 286-290.

8.     Too many planed experiments on line 291-296 and 251-254. It should not be an excuse for incomplete data for this work.

Author Response

Thank you for your prompt review.
Please check all the points you have pointed out in the word file below.


Miura

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well written and clear paper. Minor questions.

1. For your experiments you used PMMA wafer of 200 mm diameter? Correct? Did you already tried other wafers? Will your photoresists work for conventional wafers such Si, or glass?

2. Do you expect any problem with upscaling the wafer from 200 mm to 300 mm or larger?

Author Response

Thank you for your prompt review.
Please check all the points you have pointed out in the word file below.


Miura

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript Coatings-2724694 for the Authors:  This article deals with a novel resist material for photolithography based on polyglucuronate derivatives. The subject is interesting, and the demand for more eco-friendly and water-soluble resist materials is growing, so the article would benefit the greater scientific community. The language is good, graphical presentation as well so my recommendation is accept as is for publication.

Please see details below.

Title – Maybe could be changed a bit to Water soluble biomass resists based on polyglucuronate for eco-friendly photolithography?

Abstract – Although brief it states what was done and the most important findings.

Introduction – Offers a sufficient intro the topic, so no need for interventions here.

Materials and methods – Detailed.

Results and discussion – You nicely and coherently presented the results, both in writing and graphical presentation.

Conclusions – Appropriate, summed up the most important findings of the research and possible new possibilities for further investigations.

 

Literature – Ok.

Author Response

Thank you for your prompt review.
Please check all the points you have pointed out in the word file below.


Miura

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have fully addressed my concerns. The manuscript can be published as it is.

Back to TopTop