A State-of-the-Art Review on Core–Shell Pigments Nanostructure Preparation and Test Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors review the production of core@shell heterostructures for their use as pigments. As is well-known, core@shells display interesting benefits over other composite materials such as generation of new chemical and physical capabilities, structural integrity maintenance, stability of the core or even some synergistic properties between the shell and the core. In this context, an increasing number of studies are now focusing on core@shell with different functional compositions. Therefore, reviewing this area becomes an interesting topic. However, some issues must be addressed by the authors prior to its publication.

- The use of English language must be definitely improved. There are too many misprints and errors.

- Figure 1 should be improved. In fact, this scheme summarizes graphically the overall structure of this paper but remains rather confusing.

- In Figure 3, many different types of core@shell particles are presented. Nevertheless, no discussion about the advantages and drawbacks of these particles for their use as pigments is presented. This must be corrected.

- As commented in this review, many synthetic routes can be followed to get the core@shells but again there is no discussion nor analysis about the possible advantages and drawbacks. Which kind of synthesis is the most convenient for their application as pigments?

- More references should be included in the introduction. Indeed, there are many sentences without an appropriate citation. For example: “Several different materials can constitute the core and shell domains, such as metals, polymers and inorganic solids. It is easy to modify the structure, size, and composition of these particles to adjust their mechanical, optical, magnetic, thermal, catalytic, electrical and electro-optical properties.”

Suggested references for the introduction: Dalton Trans., 2019, 48, 15465-15469; J. Mater. Chem. C, 2021, DOI: 10.1039/d1tc01943k; Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1900039; Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 3950–3955; Langmuir 2013, 29, 48, 15076–15082; J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 19, 5672–5678.

If these concerns are considered, I recommend its publication.

Author Response

Your invaluable comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript are highly appreciated. Please find the response in attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is more lik a popularization of science than a review.

（1）The abstract doesn't introduce the significance the this review. Why is the review necessary?

(2) The structure of all chapters are unreasonable, and it is very hard to get the emphasis  the author focused.

(3) The review content is lack of significance in the Core-shell pigments area.

(4) The  test part need to be improved since. It is best to clasify the key properties that need to be evaluateds.

Author Response

Your invaluable comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. Please find our response in attached file.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The structure of the review is now much more clear. In addition to this, the overall quality of the revised manuscript has been also considerably improved. I think the review is ready to be published.

Nevertheless, the DOI of this reference is missing: Sanchis-Gual, R., et al., Plasmon-assisted spin transition in gold nanostar@ spin crossover heterostructures. Journal of Materials 1024 Chemistry C, 2021. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript are well revised.