Broad-Band Transmission Characteristics of Polarizations in Foggy Environments
, Xiao Liu 2, Feng Wang 2, Zhiyong Peng 3, Yuemeng Cui 3, Rui Sun 1, Zhizhong Ding 1, Jun Gao 1 and Zhongyi Guo 1,2,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work investigated the transmission characteristics of different polarization
states (circularly or linearly) in different foggy environments from visible to infrared. Method show no apparent problems. Results are reasonable and follow common sense. However, the presentation is not well organized. English is not clear either. The authors recommend the authors rewrite abstract, conclusion parts and carefully check main text for expression problems, such as
"Simulation results show the scattering effect on polarization transmission characteristics plays a major role in the wavelength of visible, and when the wavelength is closer to the particle sizes in the system, the more obvious the effect on propagating polarizations, but the DoP difference between the resulted circularly polarized light (CPL) and linearly polarized light (LPL) will reach to the optimal state at the points, which means the CPL can effectively improve penetrating characteristics in scattering systems." This reviewer understands what's the meaning the authors want to express, but the statements are absolutely in ambiguity and wrong.
"Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on published results. Please note that publication of your manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited." This is not an appropriate text for a scientific paper.
The figures report too many wavelengths. Use only several representative ones only.
Fig2 results are good enough. delta DOP for CP and LP are not necessary.
This reviewer doesn't see any use for Eqs (1-3), they are not needed.
This paper should be majorly revised before it is considered for publication by the journal.
Author Response
See from the uploaded file!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors simulate a number of particle sizes of fog at various wavelengths to compare the polarized transmission of circular and linear polarized states. Although this work is very similar to previously published work, there is enough research additions to warrant this manuscript being published as long as the following issues are addressed.
General Comments:
1) It is not obvious during the initial reading of the manuscript that the 5 particle sizes simulated are monodisperse. Please make it clearer that the particle sizes simulated are monodisperse, that way the polydisperse distribution discussion at the end of the Results section will be clearer.
2) It has been shown in various publications that the polarization memory effect can exhibit resonant behavior when scanning through wavelength/size parameter. This is due to the resonant behavior of Mie scattering theory. Please address this in the manuscript. Are the wavelength and particle sizes chosen the ideal case?
3) This work is striving to describe polarized transmission in fog, but fog is highly variable and polydisperse in nature. More detailed description of real-world fog should be included in this work.
4) The language throughout the paper could be improved. Many sentences are unclear, and the wording is incorrect. Please work with an editor to clarify the language.
Specific Comments:
1) Line 31:
The first sentence of the manuscript makes no sense. Fog is not a recent phenomenon. Please clarify this.
2) Lines 73-78:
This should be deleted as it looks like instructions for the manuscript.
3) Line 82:
The word polarization should be added to “but also changes the polarization states…” This is clearer.
4) Lines 116-120:
The ΔDoP is the same as the DoPdiff metric created by Van der Laan, et. al. in “J. D. van der Laan, D. A. Scrymgeour, S. A. Kemme, and E. L. Dereniak, "Detection range enhancement using circularly polarized light in scattering environments for infrared wavelengths," Appl. Opt. 54, 2266-2274 (2015).” A citation to that work should be included on these lines.
5) Lines 25-31:
On line 127 you state advection fog has particles larger than 10 µm. Then on line 129 you state radiation fog has particles less than 10 µm. Immediately after stating this you state you are only simulating particle sizes 5 µm and smaller. This this work only looking at radiation fog environments? Why were no particles larger than 10 µm simulated?
6) Figure 2:
The figure caption should describe the blue dotted rectangles and what they are highlighting. Also, these plots are very busy and hard to read.
7) Figure 6:
Again, describe in the figure caption the dotted circle highlighted areas.
Figure 6 (b) is not visible for the small particle radii and longer wavelengths.
8) Figure 7 (d1) and (d2):
The Y axis for these two plots is drastically different. Please set these to the same Y axes dimensions or highlight and describe that the values are very different. It is hard to compare the plots side-by-side if the axis values are so different.
9) Section 4: Lines 295 – 317:
How does this analysis compare to Macdonald, et. al.’s work? It may be useful to cite this work and describe how the Qratio approach is different.
“C. M. Macdonald, S. L. Jacques, and I. V. Meglinski, "Circular polarization memory in polydisperse scattering media," Phys. Rev. E 91, 33204 (2015).”
Author Response
See from the uploaded file!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors followed this reviewer's comments for correction. This reviewer recommend this paper be accepted for publication, but the English must be improved before publication. Short/simple statements should be used to avoid complicated sentences.
Author Response
See the Attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the language can still be improved throughout the manuscript and the figures are still too busy, the author's responses generally address my previous comments.
Author Response
See the Attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
