Development of Ultrasound Piezoelectric Transducer-Based Measurement of the Piezoelectric Coefficient and Comparison with Existing Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article proposes a method for measuring the longitudinal piezoelectric coefficient using a transducer. It provides a detailed explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of this method and compares it with existing methods. Overall, the writing of the article is very clear, but there are also some issues that need to be supplemented and revised by the author.
1. In Section 4.1, the author chose copper electrodes and aluminum electrodes. Why were these two metal materials selected? Because conventional piezoelectric materials typically use silver or nickel as electrodes.
2. In my opinion, the copper electrodes and aluminum electrodes chosen by the author seem to be quite thick. Does this experiment have any requirements for electrode thickness? The author could provide a reasonable explanation. Alternatively, it could be that the copper electrodes were merely used to hold the PVDF sample in place due to the relatively rudimentary experimental conditions. Normally, electrode installation requires the use of organic solvents at high temperatures to enhance the adhesion between the electrode and the ceramic material.
3. To improve the acoustic transmission efficiency, was a coupling agent added between the piezoelectric transducer and the organic glass?
4. On lines 328 and 329, there are references to Figures 11 and 10, but these figures are not present in the text. Please make the necessary correction.
5. In line 351, it is mentioned about the synchronized excitation wave signal. It would be helpful to encircle it with a red box in Figure 7 since its amplitude is very small, making it easier for readers to observe.
6. Based on my understanding, the author was able to achieve synchronization of the output signal on the oscilloscope by connecting the signal generator and the oscilloscope to ensure time-domain synchronization. It would be preferable to add a line connecting the signal generator and the oscilloscope in the schematic diagram of Figure 6 (a).
7. The author also used a preamplifier in the experiment. According to my understanding, amplification of the voltage of the piezoelectric material is not necessary. If it is indeed required, please indicate in the paper the amplification factor used.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Authors are grateful for the valuable review provided, changes are made accordingly.
Point 1: In Section 4.1, the author chose copper electrodes and aluminum electrodes. Why were these two metal materials selected? Because conventional piezoelectric materials typically use silver or nickel as electrodes.
Response 1: : Copper and aluminum are compatible with various piezoelectric materials, making them viable choices for this experiment. They can form a stable interface with the piezoelectric material, enabling accurate measurement of the coefficient of piezoelectricity. Also they are generally more accessible and affordable.
Point 2: . In my opinion, the copper electrodes and aluminum electrodes chosen by the author seem to be quite thick. Does this experiment have any requirements for electrode thickness? The author could provide a reasonable explanation. Alternatively, it could be that the copper electrodes were merely used to hold the PVDF sample in place due to the relatively rudimentary experimental conditions. Normally, electrode installation requires the use of organic solvents at high temperatures to enhance the adhesion between the electrode and the ceramic material.
Response 2: The authors agree with the reviewer that the copper electrodes were merely used to hold the PVDF sample in place due to the relatively rudimentary experimental conditions. The bottom electrode, which came in direct contact with the sample, was made using a thin aluminum foil of 50µm. The choice of aluminum was driven by its cost-effectiveness and robustness. On the other hand, the upper electrode was made of copper. Copper was chosen for its mechanical robustness and excellent conductivity, ensuring the efficient transfer of electrical signals. A few drops of machine oil was used on the sample to ensure that there were no small air bubbles under the sample. To delay the mechanical vibrations reaching the sample, an organic glass layer made of PMMA(Poly(methyl methacrylate)) was used.
Point 3: . To improve the acoustic transmission efficiency, was a coupling agent added between the piezoelectric transducer and the organic glass?
Response 2: A few drops of machine oil was used on the sample to ensure that there were no small air bubbles under the sample.
Point 4: .On lines 328 and 329, there are references to Figures 11 and 10, but these figures are not present in the text. Please make the necessary correction.
Response 4: Change is implemented
Point 5: In line 351, it is mentioned about the synchronized excitation wave signal. It would be helpful to encircle it with a red box in Figure 7 since its amplitude is very small, making it easier for readers to observe.
Response 5: Change is made as per the comment, picture 7 is redrawn.
Point 6: Based on my understanding, the author was able to achieve synchronization of the output signal on the oscilloscope by connecting the signal generator and the oscilloscope to ensure time-domain synchronization. It would be preferable to add a line connecting the signal generator and the oscilloscope in the schematic diagram of Figure 6 (a).
Response 5: Change is made as per the comment, figure 6 (a) is redrawn
Point 7: The author also used a preamplifier in the experiment. According to my understanding, amplification of the voltage of the piezoelectric material is not necessary. If it is indeed required, please indicate in the paper the amplification factor used.
Response 7: The attenuation factor in the RF preamplifier is 10..30 DB. The attenuation factor does not affect measurement errors, because measuring equipment accuracy (reference) is calibrated using a piezoelectric material sample with well-known d33. This information is added in section 4.2.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have attached file to this email
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
This paper should be edited grammatically. Please check the whole manuscript for typo and punctuation mistakes, such as Definite and Indefinite Articles (a, an, the). It is recommended that the wordings and grammar of English should be rechecked throughout the present manuscript
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Authors are grateful for the valuable review provided, changes are made accordingly
Point 1: This paper should be edited grammatically. Please check the whole manuscript for typo and punctuation mistakes, such as Definite and Indefinite Articles (a, an, the).
It is recommended that the wordings and grammar of English should be rechecked throughout the present manuscript
Response 1: Changes done accordingly
Point 2: . Some important findings can be presented in the Abstract.
Response 2: Points are added to abstract and revised
Point 3: . An outline of the paper at the end of the introduction section is recommended.
Response 3: Change implemented
Point 4: . The innovation of this paper is not highlighted.
Response 4: Few sentences are added to highlight the novelty of the work done in abstract and introduction
Point 5: Explain clearly what the latest progress and previous work of this paper are based on.
Response 5: Introduction is rewritten to show progress through literature review.
Point 6: The conclusion is brief and does not cover all aspects of work
Response 6: Change is made as per the comment, conclusion is rewritten to cover all aspects
Point 7: It is suggested that some new references about the research subject be added to the reference list and cited in the text.
Response 7: In introduction some old references were removed and new references were added.
Reviewer 3 Report
The work presents a study in which a process to measure the piezoelectric parameters is described and put in contrast to commonly used techniques, showing the advantages and disadvantages of using this technique. Although the aims and scope of the article fit with the topics of the journal, showing materials characterization techniques that also present energy applications, the article does not show breaking advances in the field. Although the results appear to be promising, the article mainly delves into a review of existing techniques, giving few details of the technique and results achieved, and showing conclusions that are again limited to the comparison of characteristics with similar tests. In addition, it presents numerous errors in formatting, spelling, references to figures and equations, among others, which do not allow the quality of the scientific study to be evaluated with certainty.
Therefore, this reviewer suggests that the article be rejected, as it requires a new approach to it and a thorough review of content, format, and style.
Remarks:
- The abstract should be changed, and focused more on the developed technique, instead of introducing (incomplete) sentences like “Companies such as Piezotest and HC Materials Corporation primarily offer commercial measuring devices for solid ceramic materials, rather than for soft materials like s .”
- The introduction talks about the “modes”, in relation to the different components of the piezoelectric charge coefficient tensor d, which are really explained in section 2.
- Part of the document, including the discussion, looks more like a review than an original article.
- The reviewer finds the way of numbering the sections in lines 84-89 unusual.
- Figure 1 (numbered 5) requires coordinate systems defined in the figure and clarify what the arrows are. Check image size and quality. This applies to the rest of the figures (most of them are also wrongly numbered).
- The equations require review of format and nomenclature. For example, what is "s" in equation 1? Equation (5), what is F̃?
- Review spaces, punctuation marks, etc. There are numerous grammatical errors in this regard.
- Figure 3 (numbered 7) covers the text of the previous paragraph. In general, review the position of figures and their corresponding caption.
- Figure 7, it would be advisable to present a correctly formatted graph for a scientific publication, rather than a photograph to an oscilloscope.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Authors are grateful for the valuable review provided, changes are made accordingly.
Point 1: The abstract should be changed, and focused more on the developed technique, instead of introducing (incomplete) sentences like “Companies such as Piezotest and HC Materials Corporation primarily offer commercial measuring devices for solid ceramic materials, rather than for soft materials like s .”
Response 1: The abstract is revised and rewritten to focus more of the work done and tries to give an idea on what one can expect from the paper
Point 2: . The introduction talks about the “modes”, in relation to the different components of the piezoelectric charge coefficient tensor d, which are really explained in section 2.
Response 2: Change implemented. A few sentences are added in the introduction section where the first reference of the word modes is made.
Point 3: Part of the document, including the discussion, looks more like a review than an original article.
Response 3: The authors agree that the paper has highlighted the processes of the other methods, however a separate section is dedicated to introduce another method of measurement and in future works will be present the results obtained from the proposed method to be able to compare with the pre exisitng methods more clearly.
Point 4: The reviewer finds the way of numbering the sections in lines 84-89 unusual
Response 4: Change is implemented, the numbering is changed.
Point 5: Figure 1 (numbered 5) requires coordinate systems defined in the figure and clarify what the arrows are. Check image size and quality. This applies to the rest of the figures (most of them are also wrongly numbered).
Response 5: Change is made as per the comment, in figure 5, the arrow inside the rectangle shows the direction of the polarisation and the arrows outside show the direction of force applied on the material. This information is also added in the paper.
Point 6: The conclusion is brief and does not cover all aspects of work
Response 6: Change is made as per the comment, conclusion is rewritten.
Point 7: It is suggested that some new references about the research subject be added to the reference list and cited in the text.
Response 7: New references added in the introduction.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors were asked to explain the innovation of the article in comment number 4. After review, it was determined that there was not enough innovation.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 comments
Comment: The authors were asked to explain the innovation of the article in comment number 4. After review, it was determined that there was not enough innovation.
Response: The investigation of the proposed ultrasound piezoelectric transducer is yet in the preliminary stage and future work will be towards calibration of the device and to eliminate the other challenges discussed in the article. The development of an ultrasound piezoelectric transducer is done to estimate the d33 coefficient with a reference value. The purpose of the method was mainly to measure the values of piezoelectric material in order to measure the efficiency of the poling method of piezoelectric films.
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer appreciates that the authors have implemented all suggested changes.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3 comments
Comment: The reviewer appreciates that the authors have implemented all suggested changes.
Response: The authors are grateful for the reviewer's comments.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The corrections have been made
