All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The reviewers have analyzed the revised manuscript and are satisfied with the revisions. Accordingly, the manuscript is now ready for publication.
Authors took care of all the recommendations and concerns.
Authors took care of all the recommendations and concerns.
Authors took care of all the recommendations and concerns.
Authors took care of all the recommendations and concerns.
The manuscript's language and reporting are clear and meet professional standards.
No comments
The authors have revised the experimental design and analysis, bringing the manuscript to an acceptable standard.
While the work appears to be of interest, the reviewers have raised several concerns and provided suggestions to strengthen the manuscript. Kindly review each comment thoroughly and address them in your revision. Upon satisfactory revision, the manuscript may be considered for publication in this journal
In this paper, the authors worked on the synthesis of erbium-ytterbium nanoparticles on CNTs using a microwave-assisted method, a relevant and timely topic in nanomaterial science.
The materials and methods section is detailed yet short, allowing for reproducibility. It thoroughly describes the synthesis process, characterization techniques (HR-TEM, Raman spectroscopy), and data analysis. The results are clearly presented using images and spectra.
Here are a few things that would improve the manuscript:
What factors during the microwave synthesis process most significantly influence the size of the nanoparticles? Can the method be adjusted to fine-tune the size distribution more specifically?
In the introduction, other rare-earth-doped nanophosphor-CNT composites are stated. How do the luminescence properties of the Er-Yb/CNT composite compare quantitatively to these other composites?
The authors mentioned potential applications, but could you elaborate on specific use cases where the unique up- and down-conversion luminescence would be particularly advantageous?
Turpentine was used as a renewable carbon source for the CNT synthesis. How does the use of this green method compare economically and environmentally with traditional carbon sources?
Also, are there any scalability concerns regarding the availability of turpentine or its processing?
Could authors provide more detail on how their direct contact on CNTs enhances the energy transfer between Er and Yb ions?
Does this physical proximity significantly alter the observed luminescence compared to non-CNT-supported systems?
Figure 2d : Er nanoparticles size histogram figure is not legible. Please improve the font size.
Include X axis label in all EDS spectra.
The authors have investigated the synthesis of erbium, ytterbium, and erbium-ytterbium nanoparticles supported on multiwalled CNTs using a microwave-assisted method, and evaluated their luminescent properties. Several concepts require further clarification for improved understanding.
1. If upconversion and downconversion are only reported for Er³⁺ and Yb³⁺ ions, what specific roles do Er and Yb metallic nanoparticles play in these processes?
2. Authors need to specify how Er deposited and Yb deposited CNTs behave in terms of luminescence and compare with co-deposited system.
While various microscopic and spectroscopic techniques have been employed to study the system under investigation, additional measurements are needed to strengthen the data and support the conclusions.
1. The authors claim co-deposition of Er and Yb nanoparticles within CNTs, resulting in homogeneous clusters where Er is in direct contact with Yb on the MWCNT surface. However, the authors should include HRTEM images clearly showing the lattice structures of both Er and Yb. The images presented in Figure 4 are insufficient and do not adequately demonstrate the proximity of the nanoparticles. It is also advised to provide EDS mapping to support the results.
2. The authors detected the presence of Er and Yb oxides in Raman analysis, but no oxides were observed in the EDS data of the co-deposited MWCNTs. Further verification is required regarding this discrepancy
3. In Figure 5b, the peak assigned to Er₂O₃ in the Er nanoparticles supported on CNTs appears incorrect; it seems more likely to be noise. Authors are advised to redo the measurement.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.