Optical Chirality Determined from Mueller Matrices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well written manuscript. Accept as it is!

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written and the only remark I have is the minor inaccuracy that two tables are identified as Table 1. Renumbering is required, as well as cross-referencing them in text.

Author Response

The Table labels has been corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

I carefully read the paper you sent and checked it.

Here are my comments:

The authors measured the Muller matrixes of five samples by using a spectroscopic ellipsometer, separated the optical activity by three methods, and compared the superiority of the three methods.

The originality of this paper seems to be that it compares and discusses them with various optically active samples, although the three methods discussed in this paper are already known.

It is well known that it is difficult to determine each optical parameter of a sample that has multiple optical properties at the same time, so the authors' attempt is interesting.

There are some questions listed below. Please respond.

1) The samples of cuticle, liquid crystals, and cellulose nanocrystals are practical materials that have complex optical activities. However, it seems that they are too complex to obtain clear results.

I hope that the authors prepare samples with LD, LB and CD only, respectively, and compare the optical measurements taken individually with those taken when they are combined.

If impossible, I want some comments about my proposal.

2) This paper seems to be somewhat long. If possible, could the pages be reduced a bit?

3) Line 267; What is “average²” mean? Is it square of average? or citation?

4) Line 391; Is “3” of “low ³” citation? or just a misprint?

Best regards,

Author Response

1. The proposal is very good but it is not that easy to design and synthesized materials which have specified anisotropic features which can be modified to be either one type or of combined types. An advanced metamaterials lab may be needed. We have chosen to select two simple materials (sugar and quartz) which only have one feature and then in addition the more complex materials. We think it is a strength to demonstrate that the analysis works on complex materials. The publisher has given us five days for revision so it is not possible to fabricate samples, measure/analyze and add results for additional materials anyhow.
2. I fully agree that the paper is long. one could remove some of the theory but we think it is of interest for scientist in different fields so we prefer to have a more complete description. The paper is in electronic format so teh length is not really an important issue.
3. The superscript is a footnote. The editor may chose to change to the journal standard if necessary.
4. Se comment to 3 above.