Analytical Investigation of DNA Hybridization Sensing Using Integrated Photonic Micro-Ring Resonators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors begin by numerically simulating and optimizing four photonic structures based on ring resonators for biosensing applications, but no significant novelty is presented at this stage. They conclude that ring resonators based on slot waveguides demonstrate better sensing performance—a point well-established in the literature as linked to the strong optical coupling in the void region of the slot. Paragraphs 5 and 6, which may contain novel results related to DNA hybridization sensing, are unclear and potentially misleading. In my opinion, the work cannot be accepted in its current form.
Here my comments point by point:
-Overall, the work requires extensive revision from a linguistic perspective, as it contains numerous grammatical errors and lacks clarity
-The abstract and introduction are misleading as the authors do not make it immediately clear whether the work is theoretical or experimental.
-At the end of pag. 3 the authors are unclear, and they should use the exact definition of LoD, as it is given by IUPAC, among other. Since the authors intend to define an LoD which is theoretical, they should precise that it is an “expected LOD” or “theroretical LoD” in the main text. The definition of maximum and minimum Lod is misleading; as it is widely accepted, especially when the LoD is theoretically computed, the authors could define the LoD by taking the shift of 1/50 of the FWHM of the resonance.
-Pag. 4 is confusing and description of eq (2) and (3) are unclear.
-As regarding the results showed in graph 3 to 6, the authors should precise how they model the cover medium on the sensors surface in the computational model. Moreover, what model have been used? Numerical (comsol) or semi-analytical?
-Results in fig. 7 are not explained.
-In paragraph 5 the authors describe experimental steps for DNA hybridization, misleading the readers. Moreover, they describe experimental procedures involving the entire sensors surface, but they simulate a single, flat and regular adlayer (linker) on the interior waveguide surface. How do they expect to achieve this from a practical point of view?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
-Overall, the work requires extensive revision from a linguistic perspective, as it contains numerous grammatical errors and lacks clarity
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewers Comments：
Photonics-3444585
Analytical Investigation of DNA Hybridization Sensing using Integrated Photonics Microring Resonators
Using the principle that the refractive index of an optical resonator is associated with malignant disease, the manuscript investigated the detection limits of silicon-based biosensors with different DNA structures. This paper has a novel topic and rich research content, and has good research value. However, there are still some questions need to be answered before the manuscript can be published, and the specific questions are as follows:
1. Manuscript mentioned in the detection environment is the blood, glucose and malignant cancer cells and DNA hybrid detection ability, in the actual detection process, the test samples such as blood, glucose and malignant cancer cell liquid composition is complex, its concentration will affect the refractive index, with the refractive index parameters, its complexity, how to identify the blood, rather than glucose or malignant cancer cells, please add its specific identification and DNA detection principle.
2. How did the figure in Figure 1 come from it? Is the simulation calculated? What is the wavelength range of the abscissa? Please add more detailed instructions.
3. In part 3 Resonator based Sensing Structure, the manuscript is simulation calculation, some necessary simulation software and parameter setting, meshing, etc., please add instructions.
4. Figure 3, please explain the curve of Figure 3 to explain why the slot waveguide is optimal. Can it give a reasonable explanation in principle? The same is true for the analysis of other graphs. Authors can explore the cause and physical mechanism of the curve. Give a reasonable explanation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is suggested that the English of the article should be properly polished and the sentence expression should be more accurate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes the four types of silicon microring resonators for detecting DNA hybridization and theoretically discusses their sensing characteristics. My comments are as follows:
1. Abstract should include the summarized results and conclusion of this research.
2. It would be helpful if you could explain the reasons why the device parameters, such as radius, gaps, Lc, etc., are set to 30 microns, 55 nanometers, 7.5 microns, and so on, respectively.
3. What is the optical power coupling efficiency between the microring resonator and busline waveguide of each structure, and why have you chosen the coupling efficiencies?
4. The authors should explain the reason why the slot racetrack and slot ring show such a large difference in wavelength shift and sensitivity in Figs. 3 to 5 in more detail, even though they have the same slot structure. Showing optical field distributions in each cross-sectional structure would be helpful.
5. What is the reason why RWRaR (dsDNA and ssDNA) show peculiar spectra? (Double peaks and asymmetric peaks). In addition, why does only RWRiR show a large wavelength shift?
Minor corrections:
-In Figs. 4 to 6, the expressions “RWRiR” etc., should also be used in addition to/instead of “Rectangular Ring,” etc.
-The size and form of equations (2) and (3) are not suitable.
-Page 6: “w.r.t.” should be spelled out.
-Pages 6, 10: “Where” should be “where”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome sentences seem to be grammatically incorrect, so I recommend that you get an English proofreading service.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis revised version of the manuscript has certainly benefited from the corrections made. However, the English language still requires improvement, and the introduction needs further revision
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language still requires editing
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been revised well, and it is ready for publication.
Author Response
Comment : The manuscript has been revised well, and it is ready for publication
Reply: Thank you for the positive evaluation and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are pleased to know that the introduction, research design, methods, results, and conclusions meet the necessary standards. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on the review process, ensuring further refinement of the English language for improved clarity and readability.
