Equivalence Study of Single-Event Effects in Silicon Carbon Metal-Oxide Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistors by Protons and Heavy Ions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper investigates the irradiation effects (SEEs) in silicon carbide metal–oxide–semiconductor field– effect transistors (SiC MOSFETs) that are induced by protons and heavy ions.
In Introduction it is not clear (may be the English): " SiC MOSFETs have reduced on–resistance by multiple orders of magni- tude, significantly increased withstand voltage, and ..."
In Introduction are briefly presented some comparisons with Si-MOSFETs. Please add comparison with:
(i) and about SEE in GaN HEMT: Micromachines 2024, 15(8), 950; https://doi.org/10.3390/mi15080950
To emphasize the advancing state, please insert the results of irradiations in Si-MOSFETs as a points in an existant Figure, or separate Figure.
For instance, why do you re-present Fig. 6 from [26] and adjacent text in section 3.2 ?
It is not clear what TCAD simulator do you use to obtain Fig. 8 ? Then, what parameters do you applied for? How do you simulate the irradiation on this device?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English can be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your thorough and detailed review of our paper, and your comments are essential to improve the quality of your paper. All revisions in the paper are marked in red. In response to your comments and suggestions, we will reply in detail as follows:
Comments 1: On the issue of clarity of the content of the paper
1. “In Introduction it is not clear (may be the English): 'SiC MOSFETs have reduced on–resistance by multiple orders of magnitude, significantly increased withstand voltage, and...'”
Response 1: I'm sorry for the confusion caused by this part. We have reorganized the language to more clearly explain the specific data and comparisons of the characteristics of SiC MOSFETs such as reduced on-resistance and significantly higher operating voltage values in the introduction, and we have added comparative data for the characteristics of semiconductor materials such as Si, GaAs, SiC, and GaN.
Comments 2: About the comparative study supplement
In Introduction are briefly presented some comparisons with Si-MOSFETs. Please add comparison with: (i) and about SEE in GaN HEMT: Micromachines 2024, 15(8), 950;
https://doi.org/10.3390/mi15080950. To emphasize the advancing state, please insert the results of irradiations in Si-MOSFETs as a point in an existant Figure, or separate Figure.
Response 2: We've already worked on your suggestion to supplement GaN HEMTs. We have carefully read the paper (Micromachines 2024, 15 (8), 950) and added some new content in the introduction to compare the performance differences between SiC MOSFETs, Si-MOSFETs, and GaN HEMTs. From the analysis of device characteristics and application scenarios, the characteristics and advantages of SiC MOSFETs in space applications are highlighted. At the same time, we are very sorry that we did not carry out experiments and simulation calculations for Si MOSFETs or GaN HEMTs in our research, so the paper does not involve the research on the radiation effects of Si MOSFETs or GaN HEMT.
Comments 3: Questions about charts
1)“For instance, why do you re - present Fig. 6 from [26] and adjacent text in section 3.2?”
2)“It is not clear what TCAD simulator do you use to obtain Fig. 8? Then, what parameters do you applied for? How do you simulate the irradiation on this device?”
Response 3:
1）This is a continuation of the work in Ref. [26]. Figure 6 and related text in Ref. [26] are represented in Section 3.2 because the experimental results presented in this figure are closely related to our research content and can provide an important reference and comparison for our current discussion of the equivalence of proton and heavy ion induced radiation damage to devices. However, we are aware that the necessity may not be clearly articulated in the citation, and we have detailed in the legend and the associated text description how the figure relates to the content of our research and re-demonstrated its importance in arguing our point.
2）I'm sorry that this key information is not clear in the paper. We used the Sentaurus TCAD to get Figure 8. During the simulation, we set the following main parameters (Table 4 in the updated paper):
|
Symbol |
Value |
Unit |
|
Cell Pitch |
3 |
μm |
|
Channel Length |
0.5 |
μm |
|
Concentration of the N–Drift Layer |
8´1015 |
cm–3 |
|
Thickness of the N–Drift Layer |
10 |
μm |
|
Np–well |
2´1018 |
cm–3 |
|
QF |
6´1011 |
cm–2 |
At the same time, the LET value of the irradiated particles was 0.1 MeV·cm2·mg–1. In addition to this paper, we also used the Monte Carlo method to calculate the LET values of secondary particles produced by protons of different energies in SiC. This is shown in the figure below. We will supplement the paper with detailed information about the simulations to ensure the reproducibility and transparency of the research methodology. Thank you again for your professional guidance, we will complete the revision of the paper as soon as possible according to the above plan, and look forward to receiving further feedback from you.
Figure 1 LET values of secondary particles produced by protons of different energies in SiC by SRIM
Thank you again for your professional guidance, we have tried our best to complete the revision of the paper according to the above plan, and look forward to your review and feedback.
Cuicui Liu
February 24, 2025
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPoint 1:
Reference 1 and 2 do not well addressed the performance limits that Si and GaAs have. Please replace these references with several well-cited references that explain those performance limits.
Point 2:
Please add more references to support statements, for example line 30, line 38, line 44, etc.
Point 3:
Please provide the value of leakage current increase in line 177.
Point 4:
Maybe I miss the explanation: how to estimate the number of secondary particles in each LET event as figure 7 shows? If it is not mentioned in this manuscript, please add a few sentences to explain.
Point 5:
The conclusion needs rewrite. Clearly state which conclusion is from experiment results (already have some), and which conclusion is based on assumption and simulation results and therefore theoretical.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your thorough and detailed review of our paper, and your comments are essential to improve the quality of your paper. All revisions in the paper are marked in red. In response to your comments and suggestions, we will reply in detail as follows:
Comments 1: Reference 1 and 2 do not well addressed the performance limits that Si and GaAs have. Please replace these references with several well-cited references that explain those performance limits.
Response 1: We agree with the problem you pointed out that the original references 1 and 2 did not adequately illustrate the performance limitations of silicon (Si) and gallium arsenide (GaAs). We have re-screened the references, re-cited [1], [2], and added references to GaN materials and devices based on the opinion of another expert [7].
[1] Levinshtein, M. E.; Rumyantev, S. L., Shur, M. S. Performance and Data Manual for Advanced Semiconductor Materials, 1st ed.; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2003; pp.12–37.
[2] Simon, M. S.; Kwork, K. N. Physics of Semiconductor Devices, 3rd ed.; Xi'an Jiaotong University Press: China; 2024; pp:596-597.
[7] Zhang, X.; Cao, Y.; Chen, C.; Wu, L.; Wang, Z.; Su, S.; Zhang, W.; Lv, L.; Zheng, X.; Tian, W.; et al. Study on Single Event Effects of Enhanced GaN HEMT Devices under Various Conditions. Micromachines 2024, 15, 950.
These literatures have been widely cited in related fields, and have a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the performance limitations of semiconductor materials or devices such as Si, GaAs, SiC, and GaN, which can better support our discussion. The specific content has been replaced and marked in the corresponding part of the text.
Comments 2: Please add more references to support statements, for example line 30, line 38, line 44, etc.
Response 2: We comprehensively sorted out the expressions that lacked reference support in the article. In the key discourse lines 30, 38, and 44, references such as [1], [2], and [10] are added to enhance the persuasiveness and scientific nature of the paper. These references are all from authoritative publishing houses and academic journals, and have a high number of citations, which are closely related to our research content.
[10] Zhou, X.; Jia, Y.; Hu D.; Wu, Y. A Simulation-Based Comparison Between Si and SiC MOSFETs on Single-Event Burnout Susceptibility, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 2019, 66, 2551-2556.
Comments 3: Please provide the value of leakage current increase in line 177.
Response 3: On the issue of the increase in leakage current mentioned in line 177, we rechecked and supplemented the relevant data. After 7 cycles under a bias voltage of 1000V, the stable leakage current of the device increased from 3×10-8 A to 7×10-8 A. This data is clearly marked in the text.
Comments 4: Maybe I miss the explanation: how to estimate the number of secondary particles in each LET event as figure 7 shows? If it is not mentioned in this manuscript, please add a few sentences to explain.
Response 4: We apologize for missing an explanation of the method for estimating the number of secondary particles in each linear energy transfer (LET) event around Figure 7 in the paper. This simulation is also based on Geant4 and is based on the same data source as in Table 1, where "In the simulation, 106 protons were used, the silicon carbide layer was 1 μm, and the reaction cross–section was increased by a factor of 1500. Here we also add the relevant content in the paper: through the Monte Carlo simulation method, the G4 software is used to calculate the number of secondary particles generated under different LET events by combining the physical parameters of the material and the energy distribution of the incident particles.
Comments 5: The conclusion needs rewrsite. Clearly state which conclusion is from experiment results (already have some), and which conclusion is based on assumption and simulation results and therefore theoretical.
Response 5: We've rewritten the conclusion section. The conclusions based on experimental results are clearly distinguished, and these conclusions are supported by detailed experimental data. At the same time, the theoretical conclusions based on the assumptions and simulation results are clearly stated, and the methods and assumptions used in the simulation are described. Through such modifications, the conclusion section is clearer and more accurate, making it easier for readers to understand.
Thank you again for your professional advice, we have done our best to perfect the paper. If you have any other questions or need further modifications, please feel free to let us know.
Cuicui Liu
February 24, 2025
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studied the single-event effect in SiC MOSFET induced by protons and heavy ions. The authors experimentally showed that the SEE in SiC MOSFETs is related to the proton energy and the reverse leakage source voltage of the device.
However, this paper can only be reconsidered after a major revision due to the following reasons:
1, In the title, abstract, and conclusion, the author mentioned "the equivalence of SEE induced by protons and heavy ions". However, in the result and discussion part, they didn't show any "equivalence". Instead, proton irradiation and heavy-ion irradiation were described and discussed as if they were two irrelevant studies.
2, In sections 2 and 3, the authors give a lot of numbers without any supporting evidence or reference. Here are some examples:
1), line 137: secondary ions are mainly distributed in the range of 0–2 MeV·cm2·mg–1 in SiC.
2), line 138: the proportion of generated particles remains below 10%.
3), line 140: and their linear energy transfer value in SiC was 14.63 MeV·cm2·mg–1
, with a range of 26.11 µm.
4), line 220: The LET value of the 70–200 MeV protons used in this study is below 0.1 MeV
5), line 231: The distribution of secondary particles with an LET greater than 6 MeV·cm2·mg–1 (here the author should explain why they only analyzed the secondary particles with an LET greater than 6 MeV·cm2·mg–1)
3, In section 2.3, the authors presented the result of the Monte Carlo simulation for protons but didn't explain how is it related to the heavy ion selection.
4, The device in Figure 4 clearly showed a higher baseline leakage current but the authors didn't explain why and whether it will affect the SEB result.
4.1. A follow-up question: how many devices were tested in the experiments? Do these devices have large device-to-device variations?
5, In table 2, the author calculated the cumulative fluence for the protons with different energies, which raises a question: does the SEE have cumulative effects? If so, would the burnout voltage change if the radiation time at each VDS level changes?
6. In section 3.3, I don't see any correlation analysis of SEB between protons and heavy ions.
7, For figure 7, three plots could be combined into 1 plot using a line chart instead of bar chart. That will make it easier for the reader to compare the distribution of secondary particles induced by different proton energies.
8, Figure 9 is very confusing. What does the voltage mean?
9. Some typos and format issues should be corrected. For example:
1), line 94, font of "figure 1"
2), line 134, "106 protons" should it be 10^6?
3), font size of table 1 header,
4), line 19, "IDS" -> "IDS"
5), line 252, "Figure 1"
6), font size of table 3 header
7), line 47: "consistent with the so–called. The “hockey stick” trend [8]" ->"consistent with the so–called “hockey stick” trend [8]"
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some sentences are confusing. For example, in line 123: The upper computer remotely controlled the source meter, and program control and data storage were completed.
Please do a grammar check and read through it before resubmission.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your thorough and detailed review of our paper, and your comments are essential to improve the quality of your paper. All revisions in the paper are marked in red. In response to your comments and suggestions, we will reply in detail as follows:
Comments 1: In the title, abstract, and conclusion, the author mentioned "the equivalence of SEE induced by protons and heavy ions". However, in the result and discussion part, they didn't show any "equivalence". Instead, proton irradiation and heavy-ion irradiation were described and discussed as if they were two irrelevant studies.
Response 1: We are acutely aware of the lack of argument for the equivalence of single event effects induced by protons and heavy ions in the Results and Discussions. In the revised draft, we have specifically analyzed the equivalence of proton and heavy ion initiation of single-event effects in the “4. Conclusions” section. We have conducted in-depth discussions on the microscopic physical mechanism, including the principle of interaction between particles and SiC MOSFETs, the generated carrier excitation and transport processes, etc. At the same time, we analyze the similarity of the probability, type, and degree of impact on device performance of SiC MOSFETs caused by proton and heavy ion irradiation under the same number of secondary particles based on experimental data, so as to fully demonstrate the equivalence of the two.
Comments 2: In sections 2 and 3, the authors give a lot of numbers without any supporting evidence or reference. Here are some examples:
1), line 137: secondary ions are mainly distributed in the range of 0–2 MeV·cm2·mg–1 in SiC.
2), line 138: the proportion of generated particles remains below 10%.
3), line 140: and their linear energy transfer value in SiC was 14.63 MeV·cm2·mg–1
, with a range of 26.11 µm.
4), line 220: The LET value of the 70–200 MeV protons used in this study is below 0.1 MeV
5), line 231: The distribution of secondary particles with an LET greater than 6 MeV·cm2·mg–1 (here the author should explain why they only analyzed the secondary particles with an LET greater than 6 MeV·cm2·mg–1).
Response 2:
(1) For the "secondary ions are mainly distributed in the range of 0 - 2 MeV・cm²・mg⁻¹" mentioned in line 137, this result was calculated by the G4 software, as shown in Figure 7 in the article. At the same time, we also calculated the LET distribution of protons with different energies in SiC by SRIM, as shown in Figure 1 of the response file, and we can see that when the energy of protons is 100-200 KeV, it will produce the highest LET value in SiC (this result is not shown in the paper).
Figure 1 LET values of secondary particles produced by proton irradiation of SiC at different energies by SRIM
(2) In line 138, "Keep the proportion of particles produced below 10%", the meaning of this sentence is that after sorting out the LET value distribution results generated by three different energies of proton irradiation SiC calculated by Geant4 software, we find that the proportion of secondary particles with a LET value of more than 2 MeV・cm²・mg⁻¹ is less than 10% of all secondary particles generated, as shown in Figure 2 of the response file.
Figure 2 Proportion of secondary particle LET values generated by proton irradiation of SiC at different energies by Geant4
(3) About line 140 "Their linear energy transfer value in silicon carbide is 14.63 MeV·cm²·mg⁻¹ and the range is 26.11 μm", which we calculated using the software SRIM.
(4) For line 220, "The linear energy transfer value of the 70 - 200 megaelectron volt plasmon used in this study is less than 0.1 MeV", which we calculated using the software SRIM, and the results are shown in Figure 1 of this response file.
(5) For line 231, it is indeed inaccurate to analyze only secondary particles with LET greater than 6 MeV・cm²・mg⁻¹, because the reason mentioned in the literature [31] is that heavy ions with higher LET values have a more significant effect on the single event effect of SiC MOSFETs, which can better reflect the critical role of irradiation on device performance. We have made changes in the revised draft and supplemented the relevant references [30]( IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 2017, 64, 415–420).
Comments 3: In section 2.3, the authors presented the result of the Monte Carlo simulation for protons but didn't explain how is it related to the heavy ion selection.
Response 3: In Section 2.3, we did neglect to elaborate on the correlation between the proton Monte Carlo simulation results and heavy ion selection. In the revised draft, we add that through proton Monte Carlo simulations, we obtain key information such as energy deposition and particle scattering of protons of different energies in SiC MOSFETs. Based on this information, we refer to the similarities and differences between heavy ions and protons in terms of energy deposition mechanism, type and number of secondary particles generated, etc., to ensure that the response of devices under different particle irradiation can be comprehensively compared when studying single event effects. For example, the range and energy transfer properties of the heavy ions we have chosen in SiC materials are somewhat comparable to those of protons in a specific energy range, which allows for better investigation of the commonalities and properties of single-event effects caused by different particles.
Comments 4: The device in Figure 4 clearly showed a higher baseline leakage current but the authors didn't explain why and whether it will affect the SEB result.
4.1. A follow-up question: how many devices were tested in the experiments? Do these devices have large device-to-device variations?
Response 4:
(1) For the problem that the device in Figure 4 shows a high baseline leakage current, we preliminarily believe that it may be due to the process deviation in the preparation process of the device, resulting in a small material defect in some devices, resulting in an increase in the leakage current, and we compare the data sheet of the device to believe that the deviation is within an acceptable range. At the same time, with the increase of proton accumulation flux and the increase of source-leakage bias voltage, the leakage current of the device also increases significantly. Therefore, the working state of the device is considered to be normal. Of course, we also plan to conduct a series of control variable experiments in the future to compare the probability and threshold of SEB under irradiation for devices with different baseline leakage currents, all other things being equal, so as to clarify the relationship between the two, and elaborate on the results in the paper.
(2) In the experiment, we tested a total of 2 devices under each condition. Through measurements and statistical analysis of the initial performance parameters of these devices, we found that there were some differences between the devices, but all were within acceptable limits, as shown in Figure 3 of this response file.
Figure 3 The Igss on each device before irradiation
Comments 5: In table 2, the author calculated the cumulative fluence for the protons with different energies, which raises a question: does the SEE have cumulative effects? If so, would the burnout voltage change if the radiation time at each VDS level changes?
Response 5:
(1) As to whether the single event effect has a cumulative effect, we reviewed a large number of relevant literatures and conducted an in-depth analysis based on our experimental data. Current studies have shown that there is indeed a cumulative effect of single event effects under certain conditions, such as reference [IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 2014, 61(6), 3109-3114], [Atomic Energy Science and Technology, 2019, 53 (10): 2114-2119], ETC.
(2) In view of the relationship between radiation time and burnout voltage, we plan to design new experiments to study the effect of changing radiation time on burnout voltage at different VDS levels. After the completion of the follow-up experiments, we will form the experimental results into a paper in time to answer this question comprehensively.
Comments 6: In section 3.3, I don't see any correlation analysis of SEB between protons and heavy ions.
Response 6:
In Section 3.3, we did not perform correlation analysis for proton and heavy ion primed SEBs, which was an oversight on our part. In the revised draft, we have analyzed and summarized the correlation between the two in detail in the conclusion section. Starting from the statistical analysis of experimental data, we compare the changes of proton and heavy ion initiation threshold, probability and other parameters of SEB under the same irradiation conditions. At the same time, we combine theoretical models to explain the internal reasons for the correlation between the two from the level of physical mechanism, so as to provide a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis for the research of this paper.
Comments 7: For figure 7, three plots could be combined into 1 plot using a line chart instead of bar chart. That will make it easier for the reader to compare the distribution of secondary particles induced by different proton energies.
Response 7: We strongly agree with your suggestion about the presentation of Figure 7. In the revised draft, we have merged the three histograms into a line chart and adjusted the position to Figure 3. Through the line chart, the trend of secondary particle distribution under different proton energies can be displayed more clearly, which is convenient for readers to make intuitive comparisons. In the legend, we will explain in detail the meaning of the axes, the source of the data, and the purpose of the comparison, so that the reader can better understand the information conveyed by the chart.
Comments 8: Figure 9 is very confusing. What does the voltage mean?
Response 8: Sorry for the confusion caused by the unclear meaning of voltage in Figure 9. The voltage in Figure 9 refers to the drain-to-source voltage (VDS). We clearly state the meaning of voltage in the legend of the revised version, and further explain its significance in the experiment and its relationship with the research content in the relevant text description, so as to ensure that readers can accurately understand the content of the graph.
Comments 9: Some typos and format issues should be corrected. For example:
1), line 94, font of "figure 1"
2), line 134, "106 protons" should it be 10^6?
3), font size of table 1 header,
4), line 19, "IDS" -> "IDS"
5), line 252, "Figure 1"
6), font size of table 3 header
7), line 47: "consistent with the so–called. The “hockey stick” trend [8]" ->"consistent with the so–called “hockey stick” trend [8]"
Response 9:
(1) For the font problem of "figure 1" in line 94, we will standardize the font according to the format requirements of the journal to ensure that the format of the full text is consistent.
(2) Line 134 "106 protons" should indeed be "10^6", which we will correct in the revised version.
(3) Regarding the font size of the headers of Table 1 and Table 3, we will adjust them in strict accordance with the journal formatting guidelines to make the font size of the headers consistent with the body text and other chart elements.
(4) Line 19 "IDS" and line 252 "Figure 1", we carefully check the context to ensure accuracy and consistency in formatting and presentation.
(5) Line 47 "consistent with the so–called. The "hockey stick" trend [8]", we also revised it to "consistent with the so–called "hockey stick" trend [8]", and thoroughly checked the paper to avoid similar grammatical and punctuation errors.
Thank you again for your professional guidance, we have tried our best to complete the revision of the paper according to the above plan, and look forward to your review and feedback.
Cuicui Liu
February 24, 2025
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPoint 1:
According to previous comments point 1, the authors should well-addressed the performance limits that Si and GaAs have with new references. It is very basic background introduction that many text books and articles have mentioned, especially the old ones. The previous comment is, find widely cited books/articles to explain this concept. Unfortunately, according to the google scholar, the new references [1] was cited 15 times, reference [3] was cited only 9 times. Compared with reference [2] book which is cited more than 70000 times, reference [1] and [3] are not as the authors mentioned that “they have been widely cited in the related fields”. In addition, there is not any explanation in what are the limitation inside the manuscript. Please do not throw reference brackets without any explanations.
Point 2:
Please put reference in the sentence in line 43-44 to specify which study is “the study”, even though you put reference [7] related with space application in line 41.
Thanks for making the edits. Other comments are addressed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your thorough and detailed review of our paper, and your comments are essential to improve the quality of this manuscript. All revisions in the paper are marked in red. In response to your comments and suggestions, we will reply in detail as follows:
Point 1:
According to previous comments point 1, the authors should well-addressed the performance limits that Si and GaAs have with new references. It is very basic background introduction that many text books and articles have mentioned, especially the old ones. The previous comment is, find widely cited books/articles to explain this concept. Unfortunately, according to the google scholar, the new references [1] was cited 15 times, reference [3] was cited only 9 times. Compared with reference [2] book which is cited more than 70000 times, reference [1] and [3] are not as the authors mentioned that “they have been widely cited in the related fields”. In addition, there is not any explanation in what are the limitation inside the manuscript. Please do not throw reference brackets without any explanations.
Response 1:
(1) Thank you very much for your suggestion. We deeply recognize the limitations of references [1] and [3] in terms of citation rate, so we have re-cited the following two papers:
[1] Kimoto, T. Material science and device physics in SiC technology for high-voltage power devices. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 2015, 54(4), 040103.
[2] Östling, M., Ghandi, R. and Zetterling, C.M. SiC power devices—Present status, applications and future perspective. In 2011 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs, San Diego, CA, USA, 23-26 May 2011.
- In this paper [1], the features and present status of SiC power devices are briefly described. Then, several important aspects of the material science and device physics of SiC, such as impurity doping, extended and point defects, and the impact of such defects on device performance and reliability, are reviewed. Fundamental issues regarding SiC SBDs and power MOSFETs are also discussed.
- This paper [2] reviews the current state of the art in active switching device performance for both SiC and GaN，and also provides a detailed introduction of the advantages and disadvantages of SiC, GaN and other semiconductors used in power devices, as well as future development directions
(2) From a power device perspective the high critical field strength can be used to design switching devices with much lower losses than conventional silicon based devices both for on-state losses and reduced switching losses.
Therefore, we provide the following explanation about ” the limitation”: However, because traditional semiconductor materials such as silicon (Si) and gallium arsenide (GaAs) is limited by narrow bandgap, low breakdown field strength, and insufficient thermal conductivity [1–3], the third–generation wide bandgap semiconductor material silicon carbide (SiC) has gradually received widespread attention.
Point 2:
Please put reference in the sentence in line 43-44 to specify which study is “the study”, even though you put reference [7] related with space application in line 41.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. we have cited the following paper:
[8] Niskanen, K.; Kettunen, H.; Söderström, D.; Rossi, M.; Jaatinen, J.; Javanainen, A. Proton irradiation-induced reliability deg-radation of SiC power MOSFET. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 2023, 70, 1838–1843.
[9] Peng, C.; Lei, Z.; Zhang, H.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Z.; He, Y. and Yao, B. Mono-energetic proton induced damages in SiC power MOSFETs. IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability 2022, 23, 64-71.
Because these papers mention: Proton-induced single-event burnouts (SEBs) were observed for devices that were biased close to their maximum rated voltage.
Thank you again for your professional guidance, we have tried our best to complete the revision of the manuscript. And we look forward to your continued attention.
Yours sincerely,
Cuicui Liu
February 28, 2025
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has answered my question and revised the manuscript to my satisfaction. So the paper can be accepted in its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your thorough and detailed review of our paper, and your review is invaluable for improving this manuscript. All revisions in the paper are marked in red. Please review again, and we look forward to your continued attention.
Yours sincerely,
Cuicui Liu
February 28, 2025
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for addressing the comments
