Study of Crack Growth of Transparent Materials Subjected to Laser Irradiation by Digital Holography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article proposes the use of an optical system based on digital holography equipped with a multispectral pulsed laser for the study of the crack growth of transparent materials after laser wavelength irradiation.   The topic is of interest and the article deserves to be published. However, some parts result very poor and, in general, important information are missing.

The article should be rewritten according to the following suggestions:

-         English should be reviewed by a native speaker.

-        The introduction is very poor. It should be reorganized and enriched by better highlighting the purpose of the work. Moreover, a clear description of the structures and materials that make up the paintings under study is not included. Knowing the stratigraphy would help to better identify the cause of the cracks and the potential of the proposed method. This should be highlighted in the introduction or even included in a separate section.

-        The issue of the use of IR radiation in the preservation of cultural heritage needs to be discussed.  How widespread is this practice? What is it used for? Is there a reference literature?

All this information would help determine the impact of this study.

-        The introduction lacks any reference or discussion on the state of the art on the use of digital holography and other techniques for the study of cracks in paintings. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of this technique compared with others should be reported.

-        The conclusions should be rewritten by also highlighting the advantages of the proposed method over other techniques.

Minor typos:

-        The introduction lacks all the parentheses of the citation numbers.

-        In section references, the format example of the journal has been left before the list of references.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Reviewer #1

1. English should be reviewed by a native speaker.

Thanks. This manuscript has reviewed again by Professor Hongbo Zhang. Professor Hongbo Zhang works at Middle Tennessee State University in the USA and he has lived and worked in America for nearly two decades.

2. The introduction is very poor. It should be reorganized and enriched by better highlighting the purpose of the work. Moreover, a clear description of the structures and materials that make up the paintings under study is not included. Knowing the stratigraphy would help to better identify the cause of the cracks and the potential of the proposed method. This should be highlighted in the introduction or even included in a separate section.

We have made some structural adjustments in introduction. And we marked the most revised paragraphs with blue parts. We also added references about the structure of oil paintings(references [14]) and enriched the content of introduction.

3. The issue of the use of IR radiation in the preservation of cultural heritage needs to be discussed.  How widespread is this practice? What is it used for? Is there a reference literature? All this information would help determine the impact of this study.

We have compiled Introduction, in the third paragraph, which details the causes of crack generation. Among them, references [18-32] mentioned the effect of laser cleaning and light on oil painting, which includes the UV band, visible band and IR band. This is the reason why we conducted the first experimental study.

4. The introduction lacks any reference or discussion on the state of the art on the use of digital holography and other techniques for the study of cracks in paintings. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of this technique compared with others should be reported.

Thanks. We have added several papers in the paragraph 4 of INTRODUCTION. Other techniques[34-36] for detecting minor damage to artifacts and digital holography are compared. Several examples of the use of digital holography for artifact defect detection are also listed[37-40].

5. The conclusions should be rewritten by also highlighting the advantages of the proposed method over other techniques.

We reorganized the conclusion and part of it was moved to the results. The focus is now on presenting the advantages of DH and providing an outlook on the next steps of the study. Thanks for your suggestions.

Minor typos:

1. The introduction lacks all the parentheses of the citation numbers.

We have now carefully edited the entire manuscript to have a better presentation style. Thanks.

2. In section references, the format example of the journal has been left before the list of references.

We have deleted the format examples now.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

This is a very important and interesting study. The purpose of the questions involved in the original research cover significant issues and attract many readers in the fields of Laser technology. However, the study has limitations in both the introduction and results sections where they need further improvements. Plus, the study involves lots of grammatical mistakes where they require correction by experts. The below points are suggestions to be considered for improving the quality of the research in the study and attracting valuable readers. 

·       The title needs to be more precise and should be short.

·       The authors should add and organize the keywords according to alphabetical numbers.

.    The introduction is adequately written, but with insufficient information about the topic. 

·       Results should be explicative so the authors can understand better. ( Figure 7 instead of fig 7)

·       References need further checking. ( a lot of mistakes)

·   I could easily notice a lot of English mistakes in the manuscript. English revision is a must.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Reviewer #2

1. The title needs to be more precise and should be short.

Thanks. We have revised the title now.

2. The authors should add and organize the keywords according to alphabetical numbers.

We have organized the order of keywords.

3. The introduction is adequately written, but with insufficient information about the topic. 

Thanks. We have added 7 references about the topic which was highlighted by BLUE in revised manuscript.

4. Results should be explicative so the authors can understand better. ( Figure 7 instead of fig 7)

We have now edited the image citations.

5. References need further checking. ( a lot of mistakes)

We have deleted the format examples now.

6. I could easily notice a lot of English mistakes in the manuscript. English revision is a must.

The entire manuscript has been reviewed Professor Hongbo Zhang now to have a better presentation style. Professor Hongbo Zhang works at Middle Tennessee State University in the USA and he has lived and worked in America for nearly two decades. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the suggested revisions have been made in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version.