Plasmonic Enhanced InP Nanowire Array Solar Cell through Optoelectronic Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the paper Plasmonic enhanced InP nanowire array solar cell authors share their results concerning InP based nanorods working as a solar cell absorber. In my opinion any work related with simulations has an input to knowledge if it is somehow related with technology. Here authors presented InP nanowires with gold layer which in my opinion is hard to obtain. Bellow are my remarks to work:
- please explain the abbreviations of LSPR, SPP when first used
- please provide information about software used for simulations
- how authors justify the choice of 100 nm n-type and 300 nm p-type lenght of InP nanorod? What is a length of i-segment?
- why authors decide to p-i-n construction instead of n-i-p?
- comparison of p-i-n and n-i-p constructions might improve the paper quality
- Table 1 - what does it mean: Dielectric constant of InP 12.5ε0 ?
- During simulations authors are able to simulate a lot of different, sometimes exotic structures. In the case of solar cells someone has to fabricate them. How authors plan to place Au layer at the bottom?
- Another question from technology point of view: how authors want to shape a nanorod? Will this method repeatable?
- As shown in Figure 5 sweep in the radius up to about 50 nm does not cause a significant change in the Jsc of the proposed cell relative to the bare cell. - Fig. 5 is not readable, please provide a graph with better resolution and add some scale bar for nanorod dimensions.
- Figures 6 and 7 are not mentioned in the text
- Did the transmission spectra shown in Figure 12 took into account a gold layer?
Author Response
A point-by-point response to Reviewer 1 is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Plasmonic enhanced InP nanowire array solar cell” (photonics-1147986) propose the InP NW array solar cells and calculate the key performance indicators: optical absorption and short circuit current. The numerical results show the proposed structure improves the absorption of light in both normal and inclined incidence, and finally results in an increase in short circuit current density from 24.1 mA/cm2 to 27.64 mA/cm2, which is equivalent to 14.69% improvement.
There are some fundamental issues the authors need to address before acceptance.
1. My major concern is the parabola-conical shaped of the top part of the NW. This unusual shape was proposed for reducing the reflection and thus improving the optical absorption, however, as can be seen in Figure. 3, the reflection of the NW with top-conical shaped is only slightly lower than that of the bare cell (0.05) in the most part of solar spectrum. Therefore, the authors are suggested to discuss the necessity and experimental feasibility of this design.
2. The numerical model is not given in detail, for example, the simulations are conducted by code written by themself or by using the commercial software? The details of the numerical simulations, e.g. meshgrid setting, boundary condition, and running time, should be provided.
In particular, the electric field profiles in Figure 5 seem indistinct, which suggests coarse meshgrid is adopted.
3. Some recent works on NW array solar cells can be compared and discussed.
Opt. Express 28, 705-714 (2020)
Nanotechnology 31, 315202 (2020)
Author Response
A point-by-point response to Reviewer 2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Farzaneh Adibzadeh and Saeed Olyaee report on a theoretical study of the optoelectronic properties of a solar cell design. The combination of InP nanowires in vertical arrangement and a parabola-conical shaped top and a layer Au at the bottom. The optical and optoelectronic properties of this model have been studied by numerical calculations using the finite element method. Different geometrical parameters, such as the pitch and the radius, were varied. The best geometry achieved an improvement of 14.69%. In summary, I am not enthusiastic about this work, which is partly because it is a purely theoretical study. This was not immediately obvious from the general title and abstract. I suspect that many readers would feel the same way. The quality of the presentation of the results is quite weak and not convincing. Although such a study might fit quite well into the journal Photonics, I am not convinced of the novelty and significance of this contribution. I recommend to allow the authors a thorough revision. I am confident the authors will find ways to improve the presentation quality and to better highlight the significance of their findings.
Comments/questions:
- The title needs to clearly indicate that it is a theoretical study. Please revise.
- The abstract should clearly indicate that it is a theoretical study. Please revise.
- It is not clear how the plasmonic properties come into play and how and to which extend help to promote the optoelectronic properties beneficial for solar cell application.
- Figure 2, please change scaling of the y axis to cover 25 to 30 mA/cm2. Why does it increase slightly around 80 nm and decreases again for larger thickness values?
- Many Figures are blurry (e.g. 7, 11, 12, 14, …) are blurry and the colors are hard to identify.
- The terms “bare cell”, “proposed cell”, and “final cell” are quite generic. Isn’t there a way to make these geometries more visual?
Author Response
A point-by-point response to Reviewer 3 is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors did not corrected an error mentioned in my review in Table 1. Dielectric constant of InP is 12.5 not 12.5 ε0
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Authors did not corrected an error mentioned in my review in Table 1. Dielectric constant of InP is 12.5 not 12.5 ε0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have followed this comment and modified Table 1 (please see page 4).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
After carefully checking the response to reviewers' comments by the authors and the revised version of the submission, I think the authors have adequately addressed the comments. I recommend the manuscript acceptance in its current form.
Author Response
After carefully checking the response to reviewers' comments by the authors and the revised version of the submission, I think the authors have adequately addressed the comments. I recommend the manuscript acceptance in its current form.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the revised version, the authors have revised the title and made isolated text adjustments. In addition, a large number of references (17) seem to have been added, which is very surprising. One should thoroughly check whether all these new citations are necessary. In my previous review, I criticized the fact that it was not made clear enough that this is a purely theoretical work. This point was sufficiently addressed. However, another point of criticism was that the quality of the presentation of the results is quite weak and not convincing and that I am not convinced of the novelty and significance of this contribution. The last two issues have not been addressed in this revision. As a further point of criticism, I must state that the comments and questions I listed were answered, but the manuscript was not expanded or improved accordingly. This is shown e.g. by my comment #3, where I asked the authors to clarify the beneficial influence of the plasmonic properties on the optoelectronic characteristics for solar cell application. Due to the above-mentioned points, I cannot give a recommendation for a publication.
Author Response
In the revised version, the authors have revised the title and made isolated text adjustments. In addition, a large number of references (17) seem to have been added, which is very surprising. One should thoroughly check whether all these new citations are necessary. In my previous review, I criticized the fact that it was not made clear enough that this is a purely theoretical work. This point was sufficiently addressed. However, another point of criticism was that the quality of the presentation of the results is quite weak and not convincing and that I am not convinced of the novelty and significance of this contribution. The last two issues have not been addressed in this revision. As a further point of criticism, I must state that the comments and questions I listed were answered, but the manuscript was not expanded or improved accordingly. This is shown e.g. by my comment #3, where I asked the authors to clarify the beneficial influence of the plasmonic properties on the optoelectronic characteristics for solar cell application. Due to the above-mentioned points, I cannot give a recommendation for a publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for worthwhile comments. In previous round referee, one of the reviewers introduced 2 references. By adding them to the text, the reference numbers were changed. Thus, we highlighted the numbers. We did not add 17 references.
In new revised version, we have modified and improved our manuscript. We also added 2 references (26, 27). The major changes and reference numbers that were changed in this manuscript are highlighted in Green. We hope the revised version meets the expectations of the referee.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
