The paper is well organized and written in fluent English however, before accepting for publication,
revisions are requested.
1- There is an auto-citation rate of 14%. Reduce it below 10 % (from 8 articles to 5 at least, at the
moment)
2- The introduction is long and well-constructed but the main point is missing. What's the novelty of
this work? In the really last lines of the introduction you claim that the work's aim is to present an
'easy synthesis process of titania nanoparticles by the sol-gel method'. The sol-gel method is already
known in literature so, what's the novelty here? You have to emphasize the novelty and the beneficial
effects in comparison to other techniques. Moreover, you put a lot of effort in presenting used PO in
DSSC or deposition techniques but no concerns explanation the main topic of the article, the sol gel
deposition.
3- Line 37. After 'DSSCs are environmentally benign compared to traditional photovoltaics' add, if
you please, this reference ' https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12020267 ' that is a perfect example of how
a DSSC can be environmentally friendly.
4- Regarding the device fabrication several information are missing: how many hours did the dye
immersion occur? In which way did you deposit the platinum paste? Which platinum paste did you
use? Did you apply a sintering process? How did you fill the electrolyte in the device? Did you use a
thermo plastic foil as Surlyn or Bynel to seal the device? You have to add the nanoparticles size of
the commercially available Dyesol TiO2 paste.
5- What was the shape of the active area? 4 cm2 for a single cell is large so it's going to be usefull to
know the shape of the cell and to have a picture of the final device.
6- Figure 6c. Even if you cite ref 53, a more detailed explanation of the working principle of the device
is needed.
7- It should be better to insert a statistic