Next Article in Journal
Distribution and Deposition of Cylindrical Nanoparticles in a Turbulent Pipe Flow
Previous Article in Journal
A Comparison of Anthropometric and Performance Profiles between Elite and Sub-Elite Hurling Players
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Design of a Coplanar Interlayer Gapped Microstrips Arrangement for Multi-Nuclei (1H, 19F, 31P, and 23Na) Applications in 7T MRI

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(3), 957; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030957
by Daniel Hernandez
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(3), 957; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11030957
Submission received: 24 December 2020 / Revised: 15 January 2021 / Accepted: 19 January 2021 / Published: 21 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Applied Biosciences and Bioengineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the author proposed an attractive design for the microstrip coil in 7T MRI. But the benefit of microstrip coil has not be outlined, thus I suggest the author to further clarify the advantages or application perspective of the microstrip coil in the introduction section. And for further illustrating the value of this research, the application of this design can be supplied in this paper or future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this is a well written article that explains the design of a novel coplayer interlayer gapped microstrips arrangement. It is recommended that this article be accepted pending minor revisions.

P.2 Line 88: The author mentions placing the strip lines in the order of 300, 121, 280, and 78 MHz to reduce coupling. However, wouldn't an arrangement of 280, 78, 300, and 121 MHz be more optimal for reducing coupling? Please describe the logic of the chosen arrangement. Although figures of the design are shown later in the manuscript, it maybe helpful to show a figure of the design here. 

P.4 Figure 1c): It is unclear what the black dots represent. Please clarify.

P.7, Line 227. Previously a strip line of 121 MHz was described, but this is now changed to 116 MHz. Which value is correct? Please correct or explain the discrepancy.

P. 9 Figure 8: The text mentioned a uniform magnetic field. However, Figure 8 appears to show a magnetic field that increases from left to right. Please explain this behavior and its potential impacts on applications.

P.10, Line 295: This manuscript would be enhanced with the expansion of the Discussion section. Can the author comment on the applications of the device? How will this increase throughput, efficiency, or imaging capabilities compared to existing medical devices? What specific advantages does this offer compared to previous work?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop