Next Article in Journal
Spark Plasma Sintering of Ceramics: From Modeling to Practice
Next Article in Special Issue
PEO Infiltration of Porous Garnet-Type Lithium-Conducting Solid Electrolyte Thin Films
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical Properties of 2Y-TZP Fabricated from Detonation Synthesized Powder
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tunable Magneto-Dielectric Material for Electrically Small and Reconfigurable Antenna Systems at Vhf Band
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

The Role of Sacrificial and/or Protective Layers to Improve the Sintering of Electroactive Ceramics: Application to Piezoelectric PZT-Printed Thick Films for MEMS

by Hélène Debéda 1,*, Maria-Isabel Rua-Taborda 1,2, Onuma Santawitee 1, Simon Grall 1, Mario Maglione 2, U-Chan Chung 2 and Catherine Elissalde 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Submission received: 11 August 2020 / Revised: 27 September 2020 / Accepted: 20 October 2020 / Published: 16 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Processing Routes for Electroactive Materials)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes using sacrificial/protective layers in the sintering of PZT based MEMS. The samples are characterized with TGA, DTG, SEM, and some impedance analysis. While the background given is robust and comparisons are made with previous methods of producing samples, there is little comparison of their results to existing data. Additionally, there is a large amount of microstructural characterization which is good, but there is a lack of property data. However, though the property measurements may be outside the scope of the present study, it would greatly help support their arguments.

In general, the grammar and organization throughout the paper needs to be greatly improved. There are many instances where the meaning of a given sentence is unclear or vague. There are also whole paragraphs which can be reduced to a few sentences such as Section 2.3.2 and Figure 6 where the authors provide a two page long summary of work by Kok. Though a larger revision of this paper would be needed before acceptance, some minor questions/suggestions are provided below:

Abstract – known should probably be shown

Page 1, line 37 – complicate should be complicated

Page 2, line 48 – ellipses not needed

Page 17, line 428 – Is this an acceptable loss for the keff for the applications of interest?

Page 19, line 488 – How is the porosity being measured?

Throughout the paper, is “fugible” meant to be “firable”, “fungible”, or “fusible” something else entirely?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and the insightful suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “The role of sacrificial and/or protective layers to improve the sintering of electroactive ceramics.

Application to piezoelectric PZT-printed thick films for MEMS “ (Manuscript ID: ceramics-912893). Taken into account the reviewer’s remarks, extensive editing of the paper has been made addressing the following main 3 points:

1. English editing (grammar, spelling, style) by using MDPI English service
2. Improvement of the organization of the paper with:
o First, the abstract has been rewritten and the introduction has been modified and improved to clarify both the structure and to highlight the main objectives.
o Secondly some titles have been revised and new sub-titles have been introduced in the new version. This should also make the manuscript clearer and easier to read
3. Finally, all the remarks raised by the reviewers have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1:

There are many instances where the meaning of a given sentence is unclear or vague.

Efforts have been made to improve several sentences and MDPI english service has been used to ensure the quality of the corrected version. In addition and as mentioned in the introductory part of this letter, the abstract and the introduction have been significantly improved to provide greater clarity to the manuscript.

Additionally, there is a large amount of microstructural characterization which is good, but there is a lack of property data. However, though the property measurements may be outside the scope of the present study, it would greatly help support their arguments.


First and as recalled much more clearly in the revised version, the main goal of the article is to evidence the impact of the sacrificial/protective layers on the chemistry, microstructure and strain/stress effects. The referee is right, the property measurements are out of the scope of the present review. However, in the first part, Table 2 reports the dielectric and piezoelectric performances of the thick films ceramics devices. It appears that the properties depend in particular on the density and thus on the microstructure. This strong interrelation is underlined in the text. Moreover, few sentences have been added in the discussion part related to this table 2.
Concerning the thick films ceramic MEMS obtained by SPS, the piezoelectric investigations are still under progress. Considering the originality of the approach, the main challenge lies here in the control of the chemistry, microstructure and interfaces.


While the background given is robust and comparisons are made with previous methods of producing samples, there is little comparison of their results to existing data.


As mentioned in the previous answer, the approach combining SPS and protective layer is innovative when processing printed MEMS cantilevers. To the best of our knowledge there are no elements of comparison available in the literature.


There are also whole paragraphs which can be reduced to a few sentences such as Section 2.3.2 and Figure 6 where the authors provide a two page long summary of work by Kok.


Figure 6 shows not only the results from Kok et al. (figures 6a and b) but also our own results (figures 6c and d). A SEM picture from Kok et al. has been deleted and in the previous page, some sentences detailing Kok’s results have also been removed. We hope these changes meet your expectations


Though a larger revision of this paper would be needed before acceptance, some minor questions/suggestions are provided below:
Abstract – known should probably be shown


The word “known” no more appears in the abstract which has been edited


Page 1, line 37 – complicate should be complicated


This has been corrected in the revised version


Page 2, line 48 – ellipses not needed


This has been removed in the revised version


Page 19, line 488 – How is the porosity being measured?


The porosity has been evaluated by geometrical measurements in the case of bulk ceramics. Concerning the multilayer, the porosity was evaluated on the basis of SEM pictures using the software Image J. This information has been added in the manuscript with a reference.


Page 17, line 428 – Is this an acceptable loss for the keff for the applications of interest?

Yes it is the case. The following sentence has been added in the revised manuscript as well as two references.
“These values are approaching those of a commercial PZ26 bulk ceramic (keff≈50%) and remain appropriate for application such as Structural Health Monitoring”.


Throughout the paper, is “fugible” meant to be “firable”, “fungible”, or “fusible” something else entirely?


The “fugible phase” term was used to explain that the sacrificial layer could be burnt out during the thermal treatment. However the reviewer’s question is completely justified and the term “fugible phase” can be confusing. In the revised version of the manuscript,”fugible phase” is replaced throughout the text by either sacrificial layer or burnt out layer


In general, the grammar and organization throughout the paper needs to be greatly improved.


This aspect has been improved with in particular extensive editing of the abstract and the introduction. We hope that the main objectives of the paper are now clearer for the readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript described the role of sacrificial layers to improve the sintering of electroactive ceramics for MEMS. It is a very interesting and informative work, but the manuscript is not well presented. The writing is not very organized and difficult to read. Extensive editing are mandatory.     

Some other comments:

Line 123: Please confirm the composition of sacrificial layer.

Line 432: add unit after numbers.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and the insightful suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “The role of sacrificial and/or protective layers to improve the sintering of electroactive ceramics.

Application to piezoelectric PZT-printed thick films for MEMS “ (Manuscript ID: ceramics-912893). Taken into account the reviewer’s remarks, extensive editing of the paper has been made addressing the following main 3 points:

1. English editing (grammar, spelling, style) by using MDPI English service
2. Improvement of the organization of the paper with:
o First, the abstract has been rewritten and the introduction has been modified and improved to clarify both the structure and to highlight the main objectives.
o Secondly some titles have been revised and new sub-titles have been introduced in the new version. This should also make the manuscript clearer and easier to read
3. Finally, all the remarks raised by the reviewers have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2:


This manuscript described the role of sacrificial layers to improve the sintering of electroactive ceramics for MEMS. It is a very interesting and informative work, but the manuscript is not well presented. The writing is not very organized and difficult to read. Extensive editing are mandatory.


Extensive edition has been led as indicated in the introduction of this letter. We hope that the revised paper will provide the expected clarification.


Line 123: Please confirm the composition of sacrificial layer.


Thank you for the comment. There was a typo in the chemical formula of the sacrificial layer i.e. 28wt%CaSrCO3+72wt%C. The correct formula is : 28wt%CaCO3+72wt%C, it has been modified in the revised manuscript.


Line 432: add unit after numbers


Contrary to absolute permittivity whose unit is in F.m-1 , the values indicated line 432 correspond to the relative permittivity and therefore have no unit.

Reviewer 3 Report

The review manuscript is well written. It can be published in the journal. It will contribute to development of related field.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and the insightful suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “The role of sacrificial and/or protective layers to improve the sintering of electroactive ceramics.

Application to piezoelectric PZT-printed thick films for MEMS “ (Manuscript ID: ceramics-912893). Taken into account the reviewer’s remarks, extensive editing of the paper has been made addressing the following main 3 points:

1. English editing (grammar, spelling, style) by using MDPI English service
2. Improvement of the organization of the paper with:
o First, the abstract has been rewritten and the introduction has been modified and improved to clarify both the structure and to highlight the main objectives.
o Secondly some titles have been revised and new sub-titles have been introduced in the new version. This should also make the manuscript clearer and easier to read
3. Finally, all the remarks raised by the reviewers have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The changes made by the authors are acceptable. Please publish as is.

Back to TopTop