Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have recommended accepting the manuscript. However, first the following comments need to be addressed:

[1] The authors write (Page 1, lines 10-11):
“To expand the functionality of such devices across multiple wavelengths, a dual-band high-reflectivity…”
Can the authors please mention the range of dual band in the abstract.

[2] In the introduction section can authors please cite some references for metasurfaces that use CNTs, liquid metals, graphene, MXene as part of their structures and that are fabricated on flexible substrates like PDMS, ecoflex

[3] The authors write (Page 4 of 12, lines 157-159):
“Shown in Figure 2 (b), the resonant modes happen at the certain wavelength peaks (see Table ?? in the supplementary materials)”
Can the authors please mention the Table number.

[4] The authors write (Page 10 of 12, lines 275-276):
“It is a good robustness because in fabrication the total thickness variation (TTV) is less than 30 nm (see Figure ??)”
Can the authors please mention the figure number.

[5] Can the authors please include the 3D i.e. xyz coordinates for all the figures included in the manuscript.

[6] In Figure 3 captions can the authors please include the resonation array size for which the simulation is performed? Also include the distance between the resonators in figure 3 as well as in the captions. Also include the materials that have been used for simulation in figure 3 as well as in the captions.

[7] Can the authors please compare the performance of their finite array resonators with an infinite array of resonators?

[8] In a Table please include the parameters that have been used in the simulation study, their units and magnitudes that have been considered in the simulation.

[9] Please include the Dgap dimension in the figure 6.

[10] What challenges do the authors anticipate facing while doing fabrication of the designed metasurfaces structure presented in the manuscript? Is it viable for mass scale production?

[11] Please include the E-field and H-field 3D coordinate in figure 3.

[12] Can the authors please include TE and TM simulation results of the dielectric metasurfaces in the manuscript.

Best Wishes.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

I have recommended accepting the manuscript. However, first the following comments need to be addressed:

[1] The authors write (Page 1, lines 10-11):
“To expand the functionality of such devices across multiple wavelengths, a dual-band high-reflectivity…”
Can the authors please mention the range of dual band in the abstract.

[2] In the introduction section can authors please cite some references for metasurfaces that use CNTs, liquid metals, graphene, MXene as part of their structures and that are fabricated on flexible substrates like PDMS, ecoflex

[3] The authors write (Page 4 of 12, lines 157-159):
“Shown in Figure 2 (b), the resonant modes happen at the certain wavelength peaks (see Table ?? in the supplementary materials)”
Can the authors please mention the Table number.

[4] The authors write (Page 10 of 12, lines 275-276):
“It is a good robustness because in fabrication the total thickness variation (TTV) is less than 30 nm (see Figure ??)”
Can the authors please mention the figure number.

[5] Can the authors please include the 3D i.e. xyz coordinates for all the figures included in the manuscript.

[6] In Figure 3 captions can the authors please include the resonation array size for which the simulation is performed? Also include the distance between the resonators in figure 3 as well as in the captions. Also include the materials that have been used for simulation in figure 3 as well as in the captions.

[7] Can the authors please compare the performance of their finite array resonators with an infinite array of resonators?

[8] In a Table please include the parameters that have been used in the simulation study, their units and magnitudes that have been considered in the simulation.

[9] Please include the Dgap dimension in the figure 6.

[10] What challenges do the authors anticipate facing while doing fabrication of the designed metasurfaces structure presented in the manuscript? Is it viable for mass scale production?

[11] Please include the E-field and H-field 3D coordinate in figure 3.

[12] Can the authors please include TE and TM simulation results of the dielectric metasurfaces in the manuscript.

Best Wishes.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors report on an all-dielectric metasurface based on single-crystal diamond resonators, which achieves high reflectivity and ultra-low absorption. The idea of the manuscript is interesting, and I recommend that the paper be published after minor revisions.

1.  The structure designed by the authors exhibits reflectivity close to 100% and an absorption rate below 0.001% at a wavelength of 795 nm. Why was this specific wavelength chosen? How does the structure perform in terms of reflectivity at other wavelengths, such as across the entire visible spectrum and into the near-infrared region?

2.  In fact, there has been a considerable amount of similar research on spectral sorting structures based on metasurfaces. The authors should provide a comparative analysis with this existing work to highlight the novelty of their research.

3.  Additional details regarding the FDTD simulations should be provided.

4.  There are several typographical and citation errors within the manuscript. The authors should carefully review the manuscript. For example, Page 10, line 276, the figure should be correctly cited.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should consider linguistic polishing of the manuscript to enhance its readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the Authors present a design of an high-reflectivity dielectric metasurface using single-crystal diamond (SCD) resonators placed on a fused silica substrate. Simulations were carried out to optimize and evaluate this design using an FDTD solver. Both cylindrical resonators in a square lattice and frustum-shaped resonators in a hexagonal lattice were analyzed, and the influence of potential fabrication errors was also examined. Two single-band configurations and one dual-band configuration with high reflectivity were considered. The wavelength range analyzed was from 700 nm to 890 nm.

The paper is well-written and flows smoothly. The division into paragraphs is well-structured, and the concepts are clearly explained and easy to understand. The introduction presents an excellent state-of-the-art review, as it provides several examples of similar configurations to contextualize the problem. The study is well-structured, coherent, and comprehensive. Another positive aspect is that in Chapter 3, the results are critically discussed, with particular attention given to the limitations and strengths regarding the device's fabrication.

The only negative aspect that needs improvement is a stronger emphasis on the novelty of the paper. It is not clear what the advantages of using this configuration are compared to others presented in the literature for the same purposes.

In conclusion, it is believed that the paper could make a valuable contribution to the growing field of all-dielectric metasurfaces, so it is worth publishing. Below are some notes for minor changes that should be made to make this article clearer and more usable.

1. The Authors discuss a lot about "multipole". During the last years, a strong research effort has been spent to exploit the so-called anapole in metasurfaces (see, i.e., "Multiplexed Near-Field Optical Trapping Exploiting Anapole States," ACS nano, 17(17), 16695-16702, 2023; "Lasing action from anapole metasurfaces," Nano Letters, 21(15), 6563-6568, 2021). Please discuss on it, comparing the benefits of the two physical effects.

·         2. In the first paragraph 2.2 “The multipole decomposition”, in the equations (2a) and (2b) there is a reference to direction z. It would be helpful to explicitly define the z-direction, either graphically or in words, just before the mathematical discussion. The same ambiguity is present in Figure 3, particularly in 3a. It would be helpful to include a Cartesian reference in the image.

·       3. On page 4, line 158, there is a reference to a table, but instead of the table number, "??" is shown. This should be corrected. The same typo is present on page 10, line 276, in reference to a figure.

    4. t is essential to further explore the issue of geometry optimization. It should be clarified how the parameters were defined to achieve a specific resonance. Several times in the body of the paper (page 2, line 152; page 8, line 225; page 9, line 244), it is mentioned that the geometry has been optimized. Since design is a crucial aspect of the article, it is important to be a bit more precise about the optimization methods used. 

·         5. At page 9, line 243, the word “focuse” is written incorrectly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have modiied the manuscript according to the Reviewer's suggestions. However, I'd like to underline that the discussion on anapole vs. multipole deserves to be reported in the manuscript reporting some promising results (see the previous report) as well as the benefits of the proposed approach.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf