Cyanide Molecular Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy with Current Databases
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-presented and informative manuscript on diatomic molecular spectroscopy of laser-induced plasma and analysis of data records, specifically signatures of cyanide, CN. It is greatly promising if applications of accurate CN data include for example combustion diagnosis, chemistry, and supersonic and hypersonic expansion. The publication is recommended with some revisions.
1. Line 204, “Gaussian width”, Why is there only Gaussian width here?
2. Line 240, “Voigt profile of width 0.033 nm with a 30% Lorentzian contribution is selected.” Why does the author choose 30%? Please give a reasonable reason.
3. The intensity (a.u.) range at Y-axis is 0 ~ 250 in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, while the intensity (a.u.) range at Y-axis is 0 ~ 300 in Figs. 6, 7, 8, and 9. I don't know the reason for this phenomenon. Would you like to explain it?
4. Can the author add a few subheadings to 3. Results, so that it is more readable.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions for edits, changes are highlighted in purple. Specifically, responses are listed below.
- Line 204, “Gaussian width”, Why is there only Gaussian width here?
Added lines 231 to 235 in response to the question. Included Ref.[20] that shows the recently published source scripts.
- Line 240, “Voigt profile of width 0.033 nm with a 30% Lorentzian contribution is selected.” Why does the author choose 30%? Please give a reasonable reason.
Added reference to the PGOPHER investigation regarding line profile fitting to Voigt profiles by leaving other parameters constant. Also included new Equation (13) and Ref. [40] and emphasize that the Lorentzian contribution amounts to approximately 30%, see lines 235 to 239. In addition, added a sentence above the LIFBASE results, see lines 281 to 282, and lines 312 to 313.
- The intensity (a.u.) range at Y-axis is 0 ~ 250in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, while the intensity (a.u.) range at Y-axis is 0 ~ 300 in Figs. 6, 7, 8, and 9. I don't know the reason for this phenomenon. Would you like to explain it?
There is no new phenomenon. However, added lines 285 to 287, emphasizing that two different gratings were used resulting in coincidentally similar detector counts.
- Can the author add a few subheadings to 3. Results, so that it is more readable.
In response to that suggestion, added lines 196 to 201 (overview) and split the 0.033-nm and 0.11-nm data results into section 3.1 and 3.2, respectively, with 4 subsections each: See lines 217-218, 240, 254, 276, and lines 283 and 288, 296, 307, 310. Also, lines 310 to 314 and an extra figure (Fig,10) is added for completeness. Tables 9 and 10 (near line 309) are added as well (separated from previous tables 5 and 6). Two paragraphs (lines 202-216) are moved above section 3.1 for readability.
Respectfully,
Reviewer 2 Report
The author presents an interesting manuscript discussing laser-induced diatomic plasma molecular spectroscopy and analysis of data records, specifically cyanide signatures, CN using databases such as ExoMol, LIFBASE, and a program to simulate rotational, vibrational, and electronic spectra, i.e., PGOPHER.
Author Response
I express thanks for your review.
Respectfully,
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: Cyanide Molecular Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy with Current Databases
The manuscript discusses diatomic molecular spectroscopy of laser-induced plasma and analysis of data records, specifically signatures of cyanide. Moreover, line strength data from various databases were compared for simulation of the cyanide. In addition, the experimental results were also compared with the theoretical predictions.
The manuscript is well written and the results are interesting, and presented in clear and accessible way. The literature is surprisingly rich. The paper evidently contributes to the progress in the field and the importance of the research is clearly demonstrated in the manuscript.
In conclusion the investigated in the manuscript matter matches the issues presented in Atoms, therefore I recommend the paper for publication in Atoms journal without any further corrections.
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Respectfully,
