Electrochemical Deposition of Conductive Polymers on Fabrics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author mentioned the importance of wearable technology and devised a technique for coating textiles with conductive polymers by electrodeposition on fabrics previously coated with multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). The results indicate that fabrics coated with PANI: H2SO4 have low thermal stability, and the change in electrical conductivity under wearing stress renders them unsuitable for application in smart textiles. However, the textiles coated with PEDOT: ClO4 and PPy: ClO4 exhibit high thermal stability and positive development of the electrical conductivity as a function of the twist angle, bending cycles, and bending radius, demonstrating their potential application in practical wearable electronics.

Decision: Major Revision

1. Line 17, Page 1. Kindly write the full name before using the abbreviation. (i.e., PANI and PEDOT).

2. Line 88, Page 2. Why Felt fabric is used, give the importance and need of using this specified fabric.

3. Line 101, Page 3. What does n mean, as mentioned in the manuscript?

4. Line 101, Page 3. Why was the fabric dipped only for 2 Minutes? What happens if it increases >2 min.

5. Line 109-110, Page 3. Why is the constant current of 6mA and voltage of 2v used? What happens if one varies the current or voltage?

6. Line 110, Page 3. It is mentioned in the manuscript as “during different time”. Kindly mention the time accuracy. What time interval is used? Give the upperand lower-time limits.

7. Line 132, Page 4. Figure 2 is slightly confusing, and I hope the electrodeposition is performed in a liquid solution, so why is the beaker missing? The moment Figure 2 demonstrates the procedure in air atmosphere, it must be redrawn, and Beaker or surrounding solvent depiction must be added.

8. Line 132, Page 4. Figure 2 displays a schematic depiction of the experimental design; I want to see the experimental setup, so kindly provide it in the response letter.

9. Line 151, Page 4. Kindly rewrite this statement; there is some error in it. A Lakeshore 340 and two PT100 sensors previously calibrated temperature control the temperature.

10. Line 228, Page 7. In Figure 4, why do all the (a) PEDOT: ClO4, (b) PPy: ClO4, and (c) PANI: H2SO4 composition shows similar Electrical conductivity of 0.1 S cm−1?

11. Line 228, Page 7. Why the Seebeck coefficient of PPy: ClO4 is higher than PEDOT: ClO4 and PANI: H2SO4? Mention the reason.

12. Line 254, Page 7 Only PEDOT: ClO4 power factor is mentioned. Kindly provide the power factor of PPy: ClO4 and PANI: H2SO4.

13. Line 276, Page 8, Kindly provide the EDX analysis of three different compositions. The author mentioned in the intro section that dip coating causes a nonhomogenous surface coating, but herein SEM shows agglomerations and nonuniform dispersion on FELT fabric.

Author Response

We have revised the manuscript according to the referee suggestions and a letter providing a point-by-point response is attached.

Clara

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors developed a method to coat textiles with several conductive polymers by electrodeposition. The manuscript presents interesting results, which are relatively well organized and systematized, but the novelty highlighted more. In my opinion, this manuscript should be published after minor revision.

 

 

Introduction

General recommendation: The novelty of the work should be highlighted

Specific comment:

In the Introduction section please change the following sentence:

In this work, we developed a method for coating textiles based on electrodeposition comparing three conductive polymers, namely poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PE- DOT), polypyrrole (PPy), and polyaniline (PANI).

with:

In this work, we developed a method for coating textiles based on electrodeposition  of three conductive polymers, namely poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PE- DOT), polypyrrole (PPy), and polyaniline (PANI) and their properties were compared.

Author Response

We have revised the manuscript according to the referee suggestions and a letter providing a point-by-point response is attached.

Clara

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved the manuscript significantly. However, it can be accepted after minor corrections.

Decision: Minor Revision

1. Page 2. Section 2.1 LiClO4 Correct it.LiClO4

2. Mention the reason in the manuscript for using Felt Fiber and the reason for dipping fabric for 2 minutes as mentioned in the response letter (including reference).

3. Page 2. Kindly rewrite this statement; there is some error in it So, applying coatings of conducting polymers with conductive polymers to obtain T-wTEG is favored in comparison to other methodologies due to obvious advantages from the processing point of view.

4. Page 3. It is mentioned as “0 and 120 minutes”. I think the lower limit isn’t correct (0). The authors correct the statement, i.e. The synthesis of poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) and polypyrrole (PPy) on MWCNT–fabrics was carried out by electrochemical polymerization applying a constant current intensity of 6 mA up to 2 hours.

Author Response

The manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer suggestion and a detail explanation of the changes are in the answer enclosed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf