Optimized Field Emission from Graphene Sheets with Rare Earth Oxides
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report for MS No. coatings-2965065
After peer review, this paper needs a major revision, and the comments and suggestions are appended below:
- Some typos and superscript errors have been found in the paper. Please carefully recheck throughout the paper.
- How long graphene powder with Mg(NO3)2×6H2O were dispersed under ultrasonic in 100 ml isopropyl alcohol? The authors should indicate in the paper.
- The scale bar and their values in Fig. 2 and 4 should be fixed for clearer.
- Why the graphene cathode with an electrophoresis time of 10 min was selected for the study? Please give more information for the reason. However, the surface morphology of graphene cathode at 10 min should be performed.
- Cross-sectional images from FESEM for graphene cathode thickness in each electrophoresis time should be shown in the paper.
- A high-resolution XPS spectrum of Gd 3d should be provided as Fig. 5(b).
- The equations in the paper should be numbered.
- kE in the equation of the field enhancement factor should be the same in the description at line 211.
- The insets in Fig. (a-e) are not very clear. The authors should remove the insets from Fig. 6 and present them as Fig. 7(a-c).
- Please enlarge Fig. 7 for clearer, especially the values in the x-y axes.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript demonstrated the coating process of rare earth oxide (Gd2O3 and La2O3) on GS and their effects on field emission of GS. By coating Gd2O3 or La2O3 thin films on GS, the field emission properties were strongly improved with the turn-on field reduced from 4.2 to 1.7 V/mm and threshold field reduced from 7.8 to 3.4 V/mm. The authors utilized the AFM, SEM, XPS data to describe the GS properties. And the field emission curves were utilized to estimate the emission properties of materials. However, I think that this manuscript does not have enough quality to publish on Coatings. And it should be rejected as following reasons:
1. Author should add more reference in introduction part. For example, in page 1, from line 36 to 43, some reference should be added to verify the effects of surface morphology and work function on field emission properties. In the end of introduction part, Author should describe the propose of the manuscript in more details.
2. In figure 1, author should describe or demonstrate on the figure where graphene is and how to measure the thickness and lateral size.
3. In figure 2, authors just give SEM images of only 2 and 20 min. The others should be provided to confirm the figure 3. Otherwise, GS were fabricated with different thickness (or different electrophoretic times) but author does not mention which kind of GS were used for next parts (coating and field emission curve measurement). And why did you choose those conditions.
4. in figure 4, how could the Author suggest that the morphology did not change?
5. Author should analyze the XPS data again. The binding between Gd and C should be estimated. Furthermore, Author should explain the appearance of the peak of Gd 3d3/2 in the case of pristine GS.
6. Author compared the field emission properties of GS with different coating materials. Gd2O3 seem to be the best choice. However, Author did not explain why Gd2O3 is better than La2O3.
7. Author should compared their results (turn-on field and threshold field) to those of other articles.
8. F-N equation and enhancement factor were basic knowledge. Describing those equation may be not necessary.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageFigure 9: field emission of GS emitters coated with Gd2O3 at different levels. Author should revise "different levels" to different concentration of Gd2O3 solution or different thickness of Gd2O3 thin films.
Figure 2. Author should use minute or min. Not use both of them.
in the page 6 of 11, line 203, "andb" should be revised to "and"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report for MS No. coatings-2965065
There are some minor revisions, and the paper needs to be modified. The comments are appended below:
- In Fig. 2, SEM of graphene cathode at different electrophoretic times should be (a) 2 min, (b) 5 min, (c) 10 min, and (d) 20 min. The explanation below Fig. 2 in page 4 should be rewritten.
- Typos error for the word “coating” at line 283 in page 11.
- The equations in the paper should be numbered.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been revised and improved. However, the English language should be carefully checked and edited by native speaker. For example, in line 157 (page 4), "Witch" should be replaced by "which". After English checking, I think this manuscript will be good enough for publication on Coatings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRequire the double check by native speaking
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
