Frequency Response of a Six-Electrode MET Sensor at Extremely Low Temperatures

№

Reviewer comments

Answers and Resulted modification

1)

The figure legends are not clear, and the axis of the figure (4 to 8) is difficult to follow.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have added a more detailed and clear legend of the figure (4 to 8).

2)

Author should describe the reason for selecting UG=120mV, the given explanation is not sufficient.

Authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added a detailed explanation of the criteria to select the operating voltages. Generally, the approach is to use U_G, which gives a wider range for changes of U_A. The details are presented in the text after Figure 4 (lines 183 to 218).

3)

Kindly rephrase the sentence from page 5 “the behaviour of the curves for different values of U_G is similar to each other” to represent the negligible variation in the trend with its explanation.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have added a more detailed explanation related to the curves behavior. The following text has been added immediately after Figure 4 (lines 177 to 179).

“It is clear from Figure 4 that the behavior of the curves for different values of  is similar to each other, but it is shifted along the horizontal axis by the value approximately equal to the difference of  related to the corresponding curves.”

4)

The full form of the abbreviation CVC is not mentioned in the manuscript.

Authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added the full form of the abbreviation CVC: Current–voltage characteristic (line 61).

№

Reviewer comments

Answers and Resulted modification

1)

The first occurrence of abbreviations in the article needs to be explained, such as MET and CVC.

Authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added the full form of the abbreviation MET: molecular- electronic transfer (line 8) and CVC: Current–voltage characteristic (line 61).

2)

In the "Abstract" section, 'several times' is better to be specified with some exact numbers.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have added more detailed numbers (line 16).

3)

Adding titles for the horizontal and vertical axes in the figures and tables would be necessary.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have added the titles for axes in the figures and tables.

4)

The English of the manuscript need to be greatly improved.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. The certified translator checked and edited the manuscript.

5)

The usage of “up to 233 K” in line 51 may mislead readers that the stability of the conversion coefficient is a great challenge at high-temperature environment.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have changed the usage of  “down to 233 K” in line 51.

6)

Line 61, reference [23] has reported the 6-electrode configuration. What’s the contribution of this work compared with the reference [23]?

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have added the contribution of this work compared with the reference [23] (line 61).

7)

It’s better to mark the diagram in figure 1 into figure 1(a) and (b) to make the manuscript more readable.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have marked the diagram in Figure 1 into Figure 1(a) and (b) to make the manuscript more readable.

8)

It’s better to have a more detail caption for figure 2 and 3.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have added a more detail caption for Figures 2 and 3.

9)

The layout of Figure 6 and Table 1 is incorrect, and there are some typos in the Table 1.

Authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have corrected the layout of Figure 6 and Table 1.

10)

A section of “Conclusions” should be included in the manuscript.

Authors thank the reviewer for a valuable comment. We have added a section of “Conclusions” in the manuscript.