Research on A High-Sensitivity Temperature Sensor with Multi-Indicator Based on Nano-Cylinder-Loaded Ring Resonator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript reports the study of a ring resonator loaded with nanoparticle for temperature sensing. In the study, which is based on 2D-FEM simulations, the effect of the resonator structure on the optical response are analyzed, and temperature sensing is performed using ethanol as case study.
The manuscript presents several critical aspects in the presentation of the results that make it not suitable for publication in the present form.
A list of the major criticism is reported in the following:
1. The writing must be extensively revised in terms of English writing, typos, use of abbreviations (e.g. FR3, FR4 etc). Also check the numeration and reference of the Figures in the text.
2. The results reported in the manuscript are based on simulation, nevertheless, at various points in the manuscript authors refer to experimental measurements that were not performed, e.g. line 66, lines 93-96, lines 99-102. Authors should better clarify what they have really performed in the study to avoid misinterpretation of the reported results.
3. The discussion reported on page 3 (lines 62-92) is written in a very confusing way and it should be rephrased. What are authors referring to with the expression “Butt MA”?
4. How is the effective refractive index neff evaluated?
5. What is the nanorod aspect ratio?
6. How the presence of the nanorods affects the transmission spectrum?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this research addressed MIM high-resolution optical temperature sensor decorated with silver nano cylinders (NCs) is proposed and numerically analyzed through the FEM method. I don’t recommend publishing this work in this current form in this journal as the writing and presentation of the results is very bad even the idea is promising, furthermore, some of comments as follows:
1- The choosing of silver as a plasmonic material in MIR should address by references.
2- In figure 1, should show all the structures, if you compare them, to allow readers to follow your design. I Get confused where you put the sensing material. The figure caption is not clear enough.
3- In the text, you mention silver is preferred in MIR, after few lines, silver is preferred at NIR, So , The question from which reference you got this information, As Known Silver used as plasmonic material in visible region.
4- What do you mean by “Butt MA”.
5- The simulation tool 2D-Finite Element Method (FEM) is your own code model or commercial software, please clarify.
6- The equations references should be added.
7- The fabrication and experimental setup is very bad presentation, English language writing corrections is mandatory.
8- No evidence for the fabrication process and experimental setup.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, the authors propose to add nano-dots into a ring resonator to achieve narrower resonating peaks. The authors also claim this design is suitable for high sensitivity temperature sensor. Overall, I don’t think the manuscript is suitable for publication unless the following concerns are well answered.
1. Some aberrations are used without definition, such as RIU, RI and MIM. There is no definition on figure of merits, either.
2. The authors should justify the use of 2D FEM instead of 3D.
3. Compared to the previous work, it seems the authors’ structure is much more complicated and harder to fabricate. The minimum size in the authors’ structure is 5 nm. Do the authors think it is realizable in real application? What will the sensitivity be if the fine structure is not ideal?
4. The authors mention the structure can be used for high sensitivity temperature sensors. However, the sensitivity (~1.5 nm/degree) is not very high. To reach a millidegree resolution, one needs a spectrum resolution of unrealistic 1.5 pm.
5. From line 93 to 102, the authors mention some experimental technique. But I didn’t see any experiment data in the paper. I don’t think it necessary to describe the experiment if there is no data.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors replied to all the raised issues and the manuscript has improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in current form
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed most of my concerns. I recommend its publication in present form.
