A High-Sensitivity Bimetallic Grating-Coupled Surface Plasmon Resonance Sensor Based on Two-Dimensional Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is about a surface plasmon sensor using a metal diffraction grating. This manuscript will be rejected for the following reasons.

There have been many reports on surface plasmon sensors using metal diffraction gratings, and it was unclear where the novelty lies in this manuscript.

It is unclear why the trapezoidal metal diffraction grating is used.

Instead of FOM, the authors evaluated the sensor with the index called FOM+, and it seems that they wanted to show that it is superior to other research results. Since it is a means for comparing , FOM+ is considered to be a similar means. Therefore, it should be compared with sensors other than angle sensors (for example, wavelength sensors).

Although many data comparing the performance when the structural parameters are varied have been presented, the results have not been fully considered. In particular, it is considered necessary to consider the relationship with surface plasmon resonance. For example:

・In the magnetic field distribution shown in Figure 2, why is the magnetic field distributed at the corners of the trapezoidal metal diffraction grating?

・Why is the reflectance deepest and high FOM+ can be obtained at the duty ratio of 0.68 in Figure 3?

・In Figure 5, deep reflectance is obtained at 90nm, but why is FOM+ the largest value at 70nm?

It is good to predict the performance by simulation, but it is thought that it should be verified by experiment.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented simulation results of controlling the performance of grating coupled SPR sensor by structure geometry design and materials selection. This is an interesting study, however I do recommend the authors to further modify this manuscript following below comments to better meet the standard of publication.

1. In Figure 1, the authors may include the definition of each parameters (d, d1, d2, p, w, etc.) in the schematic diagram for better visualization.

2. The author selected 860 nm light for the simulation. What is the reason for this? What is the application of 860 nm light? Why is 860 nm representative for this SPR sensor system, or how does the sensor performance changes vs incident light wavelength.

3. In section 3.2, the authors discussed sensor performance vs grating period. In section 3.3, the authors discussed sensor performance vs gating duty cycle. However, these two parameters are related. When changing the grating period, the grating duty cycle also changes. The authors should discuss how they control different variables and keeping only one parameter changed.

4. In section 3.3, what is DDM method? The authors should provide full name and the reference.

5. Figure 4/6/8/9/10 may use different color codes for left-Y axis and right-Y axis, matching the plot color code, for better presentation.

6. For section 4.1 and section 4.2, the authors should add schematic diagrams showing how they make bimetallic structure and how they insert 2D materials into the grating.

7. Have the authors fabricated real devices and run experiment to verify the simulation results? If not, what are the challenges of fabrication? Do the challenges limit this technology being used in the real world?

Minor English issues need to be addressed. For examples,

1. In the abstract, "And try to coat the surface..." this sentence misses the object.

2. In section 3.1, "f is the duty cycle..." this is a full sentence and it should not appear in the middle of another full sentence.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

A high-sensitivity bimetallic grating coupled surface plasmon resonance sensor based on two-dimensional materials

The manuscript appears to present scientific observations, but the current version requires substantial revisions.

Please format it as an article model instead. The current version of the manuscript resembles a book chapter. Please also review and correct any language errors.

Please provide the specific science gaps or points that need to be addressed in the manuscript.

What are surface plasmon polaritons and how do they propagate along the interface between metal and medium?

How does the component of the wave vector of the M-th diffraction wave parallel to the interface change in the grating-based SPR configuration?

What factors contribute to the effective excitation of surface plasmonic excitations in SPR sensors?

How can the overall performance of an SPR sensor be evaluated by combining sensitivity, full half-peak width, and dip strength?

Mainly spelling corrections

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The first manuscript was rejected due to insufficient content, but the revised manuscript has been confirmed to have been revised according to the comments, so it is judged to be acceptable for publication.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort you put into the review process. Your suggestions make our articles even more complete. We appreciate the helpful feedback you provided during the review process, which was very helpful to our research. Thank you again for your support and guidance.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have successfully addressed most of my concerns. A large of this manuscript is in good stage now. However, there is still one concern that is not unclearly answered, so I'm not confident to approve the publication of this manuscript unless further revision is made.

Section 3.2 describes sensor performance vs grating period. The authors mentioned that they studied p = 600-1200 nm, then selected 1100 nm as the optimal design parameter. However, as p varies, not only the grating period changes, but also the duty ratio changes which is the topic of section 3.3. It seems to me that section 3.2 / 3.3 do not have good acceptable control of parameters. For example, for any trend discussed in section 3.2, it is not clear whether it is due to grating period change or grating duty cycle change. In the response letter, the authors mentioned that "the relevant content has been revised in the paper"; However, I didn't find it. Could the authors be more clear in describing the calculation details?

Moreover, the authors should show the detailed results on why and how p = 1100 nm is optical parameter.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comment.Your suggestions make our articles even more complete. We appreciate the helpful feedback you provided during the review process, which was very helpful to our research.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Looks like modified well, Now its ready to accept.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort you put into the review process. Your suggestions make our articles even more complete. We appreciate the helpful feedback you provided during the review process, which was very helpful to our research. Thank you again for your support and guidance.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the authors effort in adding the description on how different parameters get controlled in each section of discussion. This manuscript is in good stage now.