回复审稿人意见

1.DearProfessorxx:Thankyouverymuchforyourletterdatedxxxxxxxxx,andthereferees’reports.Basedonyourcommentandrequest,wehavemadeextensivemodificationontheoriginalmanuscript.Here,weattachedrevisedmanuscriptintheformatsofbothPDFandMSword,foryourapproval.Adocumentansweringeveryquestionfromtherefereeswasalsosummarizedandenclosed.Arevisedmanuscriptwiththecorrectionsectionsredmarkedwasattachedasthesupplementalmaterialandforeasycheck/editingpurpose.Shouldyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactuswithouthesitate.2.Dearreviewer:Iamverygratefultoyourcommentsforthemanuscript.Accordingwithyouradvice,weamendedtherelevantpartinmanuscript.Someofyourquestionswereansweredbelow.1）2）....3.Ourmanuscriptentitled,¨****¨hasbeencarefullyrevisedaccordingtoReviewers’suggestions.NowIanswerthequestionsone-by-one.AbouttheEnglishwritingofthemanuscript,weaskfornativeEnglishspeakertorevisethepaperbeforeitwassubmittedtothemagazineandthistime.Idon’tknowwhetherithasreachedtoyourmagazine’sstandard.Thankyouverymuch.Sincerely,***AnswerstoREVIEW11.****.Answer:2.****.Answer:...AnswerstoREVIEW21.****.Answer:2.****.Answer:...4.DearEditor:Thankyouforyourkindletterof“......”onNovember**,2005.Werevisedthemanuscriptinaccordancewiththereviewers’comments,andcarefullyproof-readthemanuscripttominimizetypographical,grammatical,andbibliographicalerrors.Herebelowisourdescriptiononrevisionaccordingtothereviewers’comments.PartA(Reviewer1)1.Thereviewer’scomment:......Theauthors’Answer:.....2.Thereviewer’scomment:......Theauthors’Answer:...........PartB(Reviewer2)1.Thereviewer’scomment:......Theauthors’Answer:.....2.Thereviewer’scomment:......Theauthors’Answer:...........Manygrammaticalortypographicalerrorshavebeenrevised.Allthelinesandpagesindicatedaboveareintherevisedmanuscript.Thankyouandallthereviewersforthekindadvice.Sincerelyyours,***5.DearDr.FayRiordan:Thankyouverymuchforyourattentionandthereferee’sevaluationandcommentsonourpaperBXXXXK.Wehaverevisedthemanuscriptaccordingtoyourkindadvicesandreferee’sdetailedsuggestions.Enclosedpleasefindtheresponsestothereferees.WesincerelyhopethismanuscriptwillbefinallyacceptabletobepublishedonXXX.Thankyouverymuchforallyourhelpandlookingforwardtohearingfromyousoon.BestregardsSincerelyyours6.Dr.XXXPleasefindthefollowingResponsetothecommentsofreferees:Responsetothereferee’scommentsRefereeAComment1:Thetitaniamaterialformedaftercalciningat450oCisnotcharacterized.XRDofthesecalcinedmaterialsshouldbeprovidedtounderstandthecrystallinityandphase.Response:Thanksforthereferee’skindsuggestion.Accordingtohis/heradvices,X-raydiffractometryspectroscopy(XRD)ofthecalcinedTiO2filmwasgiveninSupportingInformation(FigureS1)inthisrevisedversion.ItillustratedthatthehydrothermalsynthesizedTiO2materialsaftercalciningat450oCisentireanatase,whichwasconfirmedbytheX-raydiffractometerwithCuKαradiation(RigakuD/max-2500).Comment2:TheauthorsmuststatethemechanicalstrengthofthesematerialsaftertheremovalofPSbycalcinations.Response:Thanksforthereferee’ssuggestion.Byascotchtapepeeltest,theTiO2filmcan’tbestrippedfromtheconductingglasssubstrate,whichindicatesthatthemechanicalstrengthofas-preparedcompositefilmisstrongenoughforthefabricationofsolarcelldevices.ThereviseddetailscanbefoundinLine165-168,page2.RefereeBComment1:Themicrotubestructurewiththesizeof500-800nmcannotonlyscatterthevisiblelightintheregionof500-800nm,butalsocanscattermoreefficientlythevisiblelightintheregionbelow500nm,andcanscatternearinfraredlight.Thispointshouldbeclarifiedinthemaintext.Response:Thanksforthereferee’skindadvice.Justlikewhattherefereesaid,themicrotubenetworkstructurecanscatternotonlyvisiblelightbutalsonearinfraredlight.WeaddedthispointinrevisedmanuscriptandthedetailedrevisioncanbefoundinLine194-205,Page2-3.Comment2:Theydescribedthesimulatedsunlightasone-simulating-sunlightcondition(AM1.5,100mWcm-2).Butinmyopinion,itwouldbebettertousethephraselikeAM1.5simulatedsolarlight(100mWcm-2).Response:Thanksforthereferee’ssuggestion.one-simulating-sunlightcondition(AM1.5,100mWcm-2)hasbeenchangedtoAM1.5simulatedsolarlight(100mWcm-2)inourrevisedmanuscript.(Line217,Page3)Comment3:Theycorrectlypointedoutthattheincreasedratioofsolarenergyconversionefficiencybythemicrotube-networkstructurewassmallerthanthatestimatedfromtheabsorptionspectra.Itisunderstandable,consideringthataTiO2porousfilmwasfilledwithsolventinadevice,whilethatforspectroscopicmeasurementsisfilledwithair.Response:Thanksforthereferee’sgoodevaluationandkindsuggestion.Thereferee’sexplanationisverycorrect.LightabsorptionsofTiO2photoelectrodesaredifferentwhentheyarefilledwithelectrolytesandair,respectively.Itisascribedtothatapartofsolarlightwillbeabsorbedbytheelectrolytesandalsodifferentmediumintheporousfilmwillinducethedifferentrefractiveindices.Thisisonereasonthatincreasedratioofconversionefficiencybythemicrotube-networkstructurewassmallerthanthatestimatedfromtheabsorptionspectra.WeaddedthispointintoourrevisedmanuscriptandthedetailscanbefoundinLine325-330,Page4.