Infiltration of CsPbI3:EuI2 Perovskites into TiO2 Spongy Layers Deposited by gig-lox Sputtering Processes
, Paola La Magna 1, Salvatore Valastro 1, Emanuele Smecca 1, Valentina Arena 1, Corrado Bongiorno 1, Giovanni Mannino 1, Enza Fazio 2, Carmelo Corsaro 2, Fortunato Neri 2 and Alessandra Alberti 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work shown by Spampinato et al. is interesting. I suggest to further proceed with publication, after minor revision.
1. Is not clear the concept of gig-lox, could you please dedicate a specify section talking about it?
2. Introduction is not updated, please include recent papers such as: 10.1038/s41586-023-05825-y, 10.1088/2515-7639/acc893, 10.1038/s41586-023-06207-0
3. Figure 2, please use white background
4. Figure 4, please double check, there is an error on the names
5. Please show also some results on the improvement done by also making optoelectronic devices.
Quality of english can be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This work deposited a gig-lox TIO2 layer by a solvent-free method. The compatibility and coupling between the TiO2 layer and the perovskite material was investigated. This paper presented some interesting results. The publication in Solar is recommended after following comments are well addressed.
1. Figure 10 presents the optical transmittance of the TiO2 sample with and without CsPbI3:EuI2 filtration. It would clearer to readers if the absorption peaks in the spectra can be assigned.
2. The format in Page 10 line 257-261 is weird. It could be describe as a sentence.
3. In Figure 11, the PL of sample a is higher than that of sample b. Is there an explanation for that?
Please carefully check the format and subscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please check the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Some questions should be addressed before publication. A major revision is suggested.
1. Some letters still miss subscripts in the content, e.g. Figure 10. ...TiO2.
2. The format of reference is not consistent.
3. The authors must provide the full EDX mapping image of the cross-sectional view including Ti, Pb, and Cs elements. In addition, the quality of Figure 10 is still unclear enough to prove the author's claim.
4. It is no need to list the full name after the abbreviation, ex: Electron Transporting Layer (ETL)... Please check it carefully.
Author Response
Some questions should be addressed before publication. A major revision is suggested.
- Some letters still miss subscripts in the content, e.g. Figure 10. ...TiO2.
Done. Thanks for checking
- The format of reference is not consistent.
We used the Latex template for the citations. Thanks for reporting, we've fixed the two incorrectly formatted references.
- The authors must provide the full EDX mapping image of the cross-sectional view including Ti, Pb, and Cs elements. In addition, the quality of Figure 10 is still unclear enough to prove the author's claim.
We have inserted the EDX maps of all the elements present. it is also possible to see the comparison with the same portion of the sample in mass contrast.
- It is no need to list the full name after the abbreviation, ex: Electron Transporting Layer (ETL)... Please check it carefully.
Done.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
It can be published in this version.
