Experimental Determination of Electronic Density and Temperature in Water-Confined Plasmas Generated by Laser Shock Processing
, María Isabel de Andrés-García 1, Cristina Moreno-Díaz 1, Aurelia Alonso-Medina 1, Juan Antonio Porro 2, Ignacio Angulo 2 and José Luis Ocaña 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) The sentences referring to the parameters of the laser beam in the focus on the sample (lines 143-146) should be placed in the paragraph describing the laser and the irradiation condition.
2) Spectra for LSP presented in Fig. 3 should be rather depicted in different intensity scale .
3) Table 1 has to be reformatted.
4) Comments in Fig. 7 anf 8 should be written using larger fonts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper compares a new one-determination method for plasma diagnosis to a standard two-determination one. The new method would give chances for real-time diagnosis of plasma properties.
Introduction includes an extensive literature review of the topic. It also defines the contributions and novelty of the new method in a satisfactory way. Just a couple of comments: (i) On line 83, something is missing from the sentence “that the ionized can”. (ii) At the end of Introduction, the authors could add some sentences describing the contents of the rest of the paper (as usual).
Section 2 deals with materials and methods, starting with the description of the test system. Some comments: (iii) On line 148, the authors probably mean the Abel inversion? (iv) On line 150, the word “lamp” is repeated unnecessarily. (v) In Fig. 1b, change the word “Image” to “Photo”. (vi) Start the text in figure and table captions always with the capital letter. (vii) Figure 4: In my pdf, nothing is really visible in the dark blue rectangles in the upper parts of the figure. A couple of questions on the profiles in Figures 4 and 5. (viii) Below Fig. 4, the authors write: “the Lorentzian contribution, which is practically null”. Is there any numerical measure for that? It is used later on in the text and this would be a good place to say few words about it. (ix) In the figure caption of Figure 5, the authors claim: “at 4 μs and 2.5 μs delay time”. Actually, only one delay time is visible in the figures. (x) In the legend of Figure 5, the authors speak about “xxx ns gate”. It would be better to write “xxx ns gate time”. See also the Tables. (xi) What are the metrics for Stark Broadening and red shift? They are used later without any explanation.
Section 3 includes the results of the study. (xii) These two sentences on lines 222-224 need further clarification: “However they are collected in the table since they seem to indicate a certain experimental trend. As it will be indicated later, this low statistic is the reason why the use of gate times of 100 ns and 200 ns for measurements in industrial conditions are advised. What experimental trend? Is it explained later? Where is this recommendation for the gate time?
Section 4 includes a short discussion. (xiii) It could well be a part of Section 3. Table 5 rises some questions: (xiv) Its caption is misleading. It includes also the comparison of electron density values. (xv) Have the authors chosen to show the results for the first method using the gate time of 500 ns and their own method using the gate time of 1000 ns on purpose? It does not change the conclusions, but looks strange. (xvi) This could be the good place to put the recommendations for the industrial use, if the authors feel their method is mature enough for it.
Section 5 is the conclusion. The paper has 30 references on the reference list.
This is a good and interesting paper needing some polishing in the text and in Tables and Figures. Concerning with figures, in some of them, the Legend needs some care. Dark blue color does not distinguish so well from black.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
