Performance Improvement of Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells with Pressed TiO₂ Nanoparticles Layer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Performance improvement of dye-sensitized solar cells by using pressed TiO2 layer

1)      Noticed no differences in the SEM images (Fig. 2). Justify it.

2)      When analysing the UV absorption spectrum (Fig 4), the data analysed in the text is different from the figure.  Clarify it.

3)      The electrolyte preparation part is not clear.

4)      Experiments - information about literature background is to be update. Add the FTIR image and any other electrochemical studies (impedance and bode phase results).

5)      Provide the equivalent circuit in Figure 5 for EIS impedance.

6)      The Figure 6 J-V characteristics explanation is not clear.

7)      How's the cycling stability of the samples with the different photoanode?

8)      Add recent references published in 2020 and 2021.

Nil

Author Response

Thanks for comments. They are get us some helpfully suggestions to the manuscript “Performance improvement of dye-sensitized solar cells with pressed TiO₂ layer” by Jenn-Kai Tsai et al.. The reply to review reports are

• Noticed no differences in the SEM images (Fig. 2). Justify it.
  • Labels have been added to the Fig. 2 to make each layer more distinct(line154), and they are further explained in the Result section (line 140-153).
• When analysing the UV absorption spectrum (Fig 4), the data analysed in the text is different from the figure. Clarify it.
  • Added text explanations in the UV absorption spectrum analysis section (line 167-168 and 170-178).
• The electrolyte preparation part is not clear.
  • Added a new section 2. Electrolyte Fabrication in the 2. Materials and Methods section for clarification (line78-81).
• Experiments - information about literature background is to be update. Add the FTIR image and any other electrochemical studies (impedance and bode phase results).
  • This study focuses on the interparticle contact of nanoparticles and does not alter the structure and composition of the materials. The Bode plot has been illustrated in Figure 6 (line 210) and its description are provided in line 195-197.
• Provide the equivalent circuit in Figure 5 for EIS impedance.
  • The equivalent circuit diagram has been illustrated in Figure 5 (line 201).
• The Figure 6 J-V characteristics explanation is not clear.
  • This has been explained in the J-V characteristics paragraph (line 215-224).
• How's the cycling stability of the samples with the different photoanode?
  • This study did not investigate the lifetime of the DSSC device, and all completed DSSC components were measured within 12 to 16 hours.
• Add recent references published in 2020 and 2021.
  • Several citations have been added (references 6,7,10,11,12).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Authors have to add additional data such as xrd, raman in order to study the effect of pressing.

2. What is the reason of selecting 138.4kg/cm2 for 60 seconds. Authors should add the optimization data.

3. Authors should add more citations.

4. Authors should highlight the novelty of the work.

Minor changes required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for comments. They are get us some helpfully suggestions to the manuscript “Performance improvement of dye-sensitized solar cells with pressed TiO₂ layer” by Jenn-Kai Tsai et al.. The reply to review reports are

• Authors have to add additional data such as xrd, raman in order to study the effect of pressing.
  • This study focuses primarily on the contact properties between nanoparticles and does not alter the structure or composition of the materials.
• What is the reason of selecting 138.4kg/cm2 for 60 seconds. Authors should add the optimization data.
  • References have been added to the relevant paragraph (line102-103).
• Authors should add more citations.
  • Multiple references have been added throughout the paper.
• Authors should highlight the novelty of the work.
  • Additional information has been added to the 1. Introduction section (line 46-57).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review Comments on the Manuscript  Energies - 2346489-
 

I think the manuscript " Performance improvement of dye-sensitized solar cells by using pressed TiO₂ layer  " by Tian-Chiuan Wu, Wei-Ming Huang, Teen-Hang Meen, and Jenn-Kai Tsai is an interesting work. Dye-sensitized solar cells have received great attention as efficient photovoltaic devices in the last decades. In this work, four different photoanode structures in the DSSC are performed. It was notice that  the power conversion efficiency of the DSSC  device based on the pressed TiO₂ layer is increased by about 36.16% from 4.08% to 5.40% compared  with the mesoporous TiO₂ layer. The work involves a lot of work, but it requires taking into account a few remarks:

A. Editing and English mistakes

1.      Page 1 -examples

·         line 8, there is Abstract: compact-TiO₂ layer and pressed-TiO₂ layer into photoanode, but should be: a compact TiO₂ layer and pressed TiO₂ layer into the photoanode

·         line 9, there is  on whether pressure, but should be whether the pressure

·         line 10, there is mesopourous-TiO₂, but should be mesoporous-TiO₂ layer

Page 5

line 173, there is RS, , but should be , but should be R_S (example)

·           It should be supported in the work where subscripts are required.

lines 185-186 - the citation should not be written on a separate line

B. Substantive

1.      The English language in the article should be improved.

2.      In Figure No. 3 there is no magnification, there is no scale. This should be supplemented.

Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript consider publication, after taking into account the editing and substantive corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for comments. They are get us some helpfully suggestions to the manuscript “Performance improvement of dye-sensitized solar cells with pressed TiO₂ layer” by Jenn-Kai Tsai et al.. The reply to review reports are

Editing and English mistakes

1. Page 1 -examples

• line 8, there is Abstract: compact-TiO₂ layer and pressed-TiO₂ layer into photoanode, but should be: a compact TiO₂ layer and pressed TiO₂ layer into the photoanode
• line 9, there is on whether pressure, but should be whether the pressure
• line 10, there is mesopourous-TiO₂, but should be mesoporous-TiO₂ layer

Page 5

line 173, there is RS, , but should be , but should be R_S (example)

• It should be supported in the work where subscripts are required.

lines 185-186 - the citation should not be written on a separate line

Substantive

• The English language in the article should be improved.
  • Replied articles have been professionally edited in English
• In Figure No. 3 there is no magnification, there is no scale. This should be supplemented.
  • Scale bar has been added to the figure (line 165).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors answered properly for all the queries. Hence the Ms is accepted for publication.