A New Diffuse Optics Emitter for High Visual Diffuse Transmission Density Measurement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work looks interesting. The authors described in detail the relevance of their work and similar developments. I recommend the paper for publishing in this journal.

However, there are some questions. The manuscript looks incomplete. I would like to see more technical characteristics of the diffuse optic emitter, for example, more parameters of optical fibers. Also, it is not clear from the text of the manuscript why such emitter parameters were chosen: the diameter of the hemisphere of 25 mm and the number of fibers of 235, etc. An interesting addition to the manuscript could be a comparison of different emitter geometries and a preliminary simulation of the radiation propagation for different geometries, for example, in the TracePro software.

In General, authors should pay attention to formatting. For example:

Line 45. Point at the beginning of the line.

Lines 67-69. The sentence starts with a small letter. Some punctuation marks and spaces have been lost.

Lines 111, 130, 149. Headers start with a small letter, etc.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and very valuable opions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

More details are needed in the materials and method section.

Units must be better defined.

Axis in figures must be improved.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and very valuable opions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Report for the manuscript ID: applsci-532231:

“A new diffuse optic emitter for high visual diffuse transmission density measurement”

Authors: Zilong Liu, Yuxiao Li, Yiqin Jiang, Ruping Liu, Shuguo Zhang, Qiaoxiang Zhang, Rui Chen

The Authors present a novel device, which, for example, may be useful for measuring diffuse reflectance spectra; of course, the device may be also employed for other purposes. I think the device is interesting and the manuscript is worth publishing. But, before then and before going to publication, I need to point out two classes of defects necessary to amend:

1)Use of English language: it is absolutely necessary to improve the writing style. One suggestion: please substitute everywhere the word “optic” with either “optical” or “optics”. In the title for example I think “optics” is needed. Page 1, line 27: “important” instead of “import”. Page 1, line 36: “decrease” instead of “descend”. Page 2, line 45: instead of “easy relatively for using” “relatively easy to use”. Page 2, line 58: “connecting” instead of “connect”. Page 2, line 59: the sentence “The interval of these connection point is equal solid angle” is unclear; I guess that the Authors meant: “The distance, in terms of solid angles, between adjacent optical connection fibers is constant”. Page 2, line 63, and everywhere else: “device” instead of “artifact”. Etcetera. Caption of Figure 3: please report concisely what is written in the text describing the meaning of each number in the figure. Page 4, line 118: capital letter for “lambert”. Captions of Figures 6 and 7 should be changed to “frequency distribution of light flux (or of noise) in one hour”. The style of references should be homogeneous.

2)One example of application of the proposed device would be quite beneficial to be presented and discussed. I let the Authors choose which one. If possible an example from spectroscopy would be best, at least it would be what I prefer. Additionally, nowhere do I see the wavelength interval for which the designed device has (UV, Visible?), or could be extended to (infrared?). This is likely to be related to the materials employed for the device, which are insufficiently described: for example opal is too generic; it is amorphous silica all right, but the purity and color are important: so, please report which type is, from which company did you buy it, etc. The same can be said for the optical fibers. Please explain.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and very valuable opions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept