Next Article in Journal
Intelligent User Interfaces and Their Evaluation: A Systematic Mapping Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Direct Conversion X-ray Detector with Micron-Scale Pixel Pitch for Edge-Illumination and Propagation-Based X-ray Phase-Contrast Imaging
Previous Article in Journal
Real-Time Short-Term Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction Based on Gait Biomechanics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of a High-Sensitivity Organ-Targeted PET Camera
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Dark Current Modeling for a Polyimide—Amorphous Lead Oxide-Based Direct Conversion X-ray Detector

Sensors 2022, 22(15), 5829; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155829
by Tristen Thibault 1,*, Oleksandr Grynko 1, Emma Pineau 1 and Alla Reznik 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Sensors 2022, 22(15), 5829; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155829
Submission received: 11 July 2022 / Revised: 28 July 2022 / Accepted: 2 August 2022 / Published: 4 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Materials and Technologies for Radiation Detectors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript, the authors analysed and discussed dark current decay over time as a function of bias voltage in Polyimide - Amorphous Lead Oxide- based X-ray Detector. They proposed novel theoretical model to describe the dark current kinetics in an a-PbO detector as a function of bias voltage. It is based on a model previously applied to a-Se photodetectors. 

This work is an extension of their earlier publications (Ref. [15] https://doi.org/10.3390/s21217321 and in particular Ref. [4] https://doi.org/10.1109/ TED.2021.3067616).

A look at the aforementioned earlier publications shows that part of the results (Figs. 3 and 5) are merely a reproduction of those previously reported in ref. [4]. However, the second part, in which a new theoretical model is presented, is valuable for publication. It is highly questionable whether the part of the manuscript relating to the modulated and continuous XPM experiment should remain in the manuscript, especially since it is not relevant for the discussion of dark current kinetics and the theoretical model.

The content is clearly stated and the results are adequately discussed. There are several, mostly minor comments and suggestions:

    • Fig. 8: I do not see the point of sub-figures a) and b) as they present the same information scaled only for the dielectric constant.

    • Conclusion (line 425): "Much better agreement between the experimental and simulated results is evident when compared to Figure 7." should be supported by giving quantitative values for the goodness of fit shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 11 (e.g. R-squared).

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments are in attachement

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors' kindly reply to all my curiosities and suggestions, I dont'h have further ones.

Back to TopTop