Polarization Transmission of Visible Light in Inhomogeneous Sea Fog Particle Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, a scattering model of inhomogeneous particles is built using the polarization Monte Carlo method. The relationships of DOP with the wavelength and the relative humidity are analyzed, respectively.

However, in the 4th section, even in the model, the influence of temperature on the experimental results is not mentioned. Does the temperature affect the final results? If so, what is the influence?

In simulation and experiment, 0 °, 45 ° and 90 ° linearly polarized light and right-handed circularly polarized light are used to calculate DOP, but why do you choose these four polarization states？ If left-handed polarized light or elliptically polarized light is used, should the results be the same as right-handed polarized light?

In addition, in the experiment, whether the position of the monitoring point (the receiving end) has an impact on the results？

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reports polarization transmission of visible light in a non-uniform sea particle environment, which is suitable for publication in this paper. However, the authors' unique contributions are hard to distinguish from previous publications in some parts. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript highlighting their own unique contributions. In particular, please cite references to equations not driven by the authors and clearly emphasize the further development from the previous publications including their own works.

Here are some recommendations or comments for better reading.

1. pg. 1, Abstract

1) Line 24, Please spell all acronyms you use for the first uses in the abstract and the main body, respectively.

2) Line 25-28, I understand the meanings of DOP450 and so on in the abstract, but surely all those should be properly defined or explained in the abstract.

2. Pg. 2, Line 45

1) The journal is an international journal. so please avoid the expression such as 'foreign countries'.

3. Pg. 2, Line 60

1) Please cite the references to describe or define terms such as equivalent refractive index, mixing ratio, scale parameter, etc.

4. Pg. 3, Line 126

1) Please enlarge the figure.

5. Pg. 3, Line 128, Pg. 4, Line 141

1) “The inhomogeneous sea fog particle is equivalently regarded as a homogeneous spherical particle with a radius of a and a refractive index of m=n-ik.” Please verify the argument or cite the reference.

2) “The refractive index of the equivalent particles at this time is considered the equivalent refractive index of the inhomogeneous sea fog particles when the relative difference between the optical parameters of the double-layer spherical particles and the equivalent spherical particles is the smallest.” The smallest does not necessarily mean the equivalency. It is rather proper to say the proposed method would be only valid for the mixing ratio ~ 0.5.

6. Pg. 3, Line 146

1) We often use two different complex refractive index definitions: N=n-ik or N=n+ik. However, it is better to use only one definition throughout the paper.

2) Please mention the measurement or reference wavelength for the values.

7. Pg. 4, Line 50 and Table 1

1) The mixing ratios are somewhat irregularly spaced. Why were the non-uniform spacings used for the mixing ratios?

8. Pg. 4, Line 154-161

1)  "Table 1 shows that the equivalent refractive index is close to the refractive index of water particles when the mixing ratio is 0.1<f<0.4." It is very difficult to agree with the argument because the refractive indices at r=0.1 and 0.3 differ by almost 0.17.

2) Line 157, "However, the equivalent refractive index is close to the refractive index of sea salt particles when the mixing ratio is 0<f<0.1 or 0.5<f<1." There is no data presented for the mixing ratio 0<f<0.1.

9. Pg. 5

1) It is difficult to follow the equations because some terms/symbols are not properly explained or mentioned in the main text, such as r(aw).

2) Please cite the references to Eq. 5~7.

10. Pg. 5~7, section 2.3 and section 3.1

1) The most of section 2.3 and section 3.1 seem to be from the previous publications including the own works from the authors.

11. Pg. 9, Fig. 7 & 8

1) It is hard to distinguish the four symbols in Fig. 7.

2) The four figures of Fig. 8 should have the same y-axis range.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In line 216, “the ability to simulate……”

In line 222, ”first, we set the incident wavelength and relative humidity”