Investigating the Influence of Ion Species on the Irradiation-Induced Mechanical Properties of Borosilicate Glass

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Page 1 line 17: please indicate at which irradiation rate are the values 8.4% and 17.0% obtained.

line 47 : please, delete "when"

 

Author Response

Corresponding modifications have been made in the text according to the suggestions of reviewers

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes what appears to be a well performed experiment with information ultimately worthy of publication.  However, the discussion of the data is, for me, extremely difficult to follow.  
As noted several times below, I am not an expert in this field, but the presentation and discussion of the figures seems to have a "random walk" format.  For me to follow the discussion, a major restructuring of the 
current information is needed.  Because of my difficulty in following the text, I obtained no feeling as to whether the data justifies the conclusions that are made.  In particular, after reading the manuscript I really 
have no idea as to how information about the electronic and nuclear energy deposition were obtained.  Perhaps I missed this but it plays a critical role in the points the authors wish to make.  My recommendation 
is that the present manuscript is not suitable for publication.  Rather, a major restructuring is needed, e.g., all the text and figures for discussions relating the hardness be grouped with the same being then done for 
the Young's modulus.  As for the recovery discussion, this could be included in the previous two sections or addressed separately.  Finally, since this is a major point the authors wish to make, more information about 
the nuclear vs. electronic energy deposition and how these are obtained is, for me, essential.  A resubmission and additional review after these points and the specific comments listed below are considered by the 
authors is necessary.

List of specific comments
Abstract, lines 18-19 and 20-21:  The "nuclear energy deposition" statement is made two times.  These should be combined in a single sentence.

Introduction, lines 54-55:  Although I am not an expert in this field, from the previous sentences I got the impression that previous studies had provided information about the roles of nuclear and 
electronic deposition.  But this sentence implies they have not.  To avoid other readers getting the same impression, I suggest modifying this by inserting the following paragraph information here.

Lines 76-79 and Table 2: A small point but a single digit after the decimal points for the fluences should be sufficient.  More importantly, as the table gives much of the same information, I suggest in 
the text, simply outline the three scenarios without details and modify table 2 to three lines, one for each scenario.

Figure 1:  Just as suggestion, but adding curves of the ratios of nuclear to electronic energy loss may be useful to some readers.

Section 2.3:  As stated, I am not an expert in this field.  But, for me and other "general readers" it would be useful to have a couple sentences explaining load displacement and nano-indentation.

Section 3:  This section needs a major modification.  At about line 130 I got totally confused.  The problem is from the text, one gets the impression that Figures 2 and 3 are being discussed so has no 
idea why figures 5 and 7 suddenly are meantioned.  From an "overview" of this section, I suggest providing two subsections, e.g. a "hardness" subsection beginning at line 104 where figures 2,4,6 are
 grouped, perhaps as parts of a single figure, and discussed.  And, a "Young's modulus" subsection beginning at line 124 where figures 3,57 are handled in the same fashion.  Specific comments for lines 
100-130 are provided below.  Due to my confusion, no comments for the rest of this section are made.

Line 100:  "Compared with"   Does this mean "in agreement with": or "in constrast with" ?

Figures 2 and 3:  In the caption, please add information about the 500-1000 region that is indictated.  In the figure, add information explained the difference between the blue and green Ar curves and 
I don't see any curve for the + He data.

Line 104:  Again, as a non-expert, it is only a single case but is the difference for the red He curve "remarkable"?  I suggest simply saying the hardness is less.

Lines 108-9:  This sentence seems out of place and causses confusion.

Line 112:  I assume the authors mean "in the 500-1000 nm range" the maximum is 8.4%.  Also, is 8.4% "remarkable", e.g. comment for line 104.

Line 113:  "decreases first"  When I started reading this sentence, I had the impression that this was with respect to penetration depth.  Reading further implies this is with respect to fluence.  Please clarify.

Line 114:  Actually, it increases slowly and plateaus.  Again, I assume it is meant, in the 500-1000 region the reduction is.

Line 115:  No data is shown for this.  It appears that something is wrong with the entire text and figure describing the Ar data.  A close look is needed to clarify.

Lines 119-20:  Considering the levels range from 8 to 17%, I find the descriptions of "high, intermediate and low" very confusing.

Line 120:  Figure 6 is referred to and we haven't even come to figures 3,4 and 5 yet.

Lines 124-5:  Only an expert in the field would understand this sentence.  What is plastic and what is elastic?

Line 128:  Figure 5????  Also, "shows" is misspelled.

In reading this section, it would help if subsections were added, 

Line 130:  Same comment as above about the range that is meant for the maximum.

Section 4:
Line 163:  How is the electronic energy deposition for the present data obtained?

Fig. 8:  I suggest rather than lines connecting the data points, smooth curves as in Fig. 9 are used.  Also, somewhere in the figure or caption a reference for the electron data is needed.

Fig. 9:  Explanation of the curves in the caption is needed.  Also, is the magenta curve an average of the He and Ar data?  If so, it appears to be wrong.  If not, a curve for the He data is needed.

Lines 164-172:  To follow this discussion one needs to know that only Fig. 8 is being discussed.

Section 4.2:  Lines 174-186.  Although from the statement at the beginning of Section 4 and the previous subsection, one expects Fig 9 to be discussed, the information in these lines cause confusion.

Line 189:  Considering the error bars shown in Fig. 9, there is "meaningful" correlation. I believe the authors mean, there is no "major" correlation.

Lines 190-195:  The reader has no idea where this information comes from.  Perhaps in the conclusions section, it would be appropriate but it seems totally out of context here.

Section 4.3:
Line 197:  please refer to a specific figure.

Line 198:  please check the subscript nucl.  Likewise for line 206.  Since the authors mean something by these subscripts, I suggest rather than subscripts put this information in brackets following the keV/cm3.

Lines 199-200:  again refer to a specific figure.

Line 219:  Discussing Fig 6 now seems out of place.  Perhaps moving the "hardness" figures to this section would be more appropriate.

Section 5, line 239:  I believe the samples were irradiated by the beams rather than be beams being "exposed into" the samples.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for considering/addressing my previous comments.  However, my opinion is that two important points have not been properly addressed.  These are 1) rearrangement of the figures such that they 
are presented in order that they are discussed in the various sections and 2) explanation of the magenta curve in figure 9 TO THE READER not just to me.  My opinion is that the present arrangement of the manuscript 
makes following and understanding the intended message difficult for many readers.  Thus, I cannot recommend publication in the present form.
In addition, I add a list of some minor items that should be corrected.

lines 98 and 100:  change "increase" to "increases"

line 107:  I believe "which" should be changed to "with".   Please check.

Figures 2 and 3:  I see now that I misinterpretted the pre-irradiated label (e.g. Ar + He) in these figures by thinking the + was a symbol indicator.  To avoid confusion, I suggest having this label on a single line.

Section 3.1:  I find it EXTREMELY odd that in the section "hardness", figures 4 and 6 are discussed prior to any comments about figures 3 and 5.  I do not understand why if no rearrangement of the figures was 
made, no explanation as to why was provided.  I, like most readers, would like the figures to be discussed in order.

lines 123 and 124: I believe the authors mean Fig 3 and that the ion fluence is approximately 1 (not 1.0) x 10^15.

line 132:  change "increase" to "increases".

Fig. 9:  To clarify my previous comment, No. 18, regarding the magenta curve.  Definition of the majenta line needs to be stated IN THE CAPTION rather than just a text comment to me.

Sections 4.1 and 4.2:  Line 162 refers to figures 8 and 9 but they are discussed separately in sections 4.1 and 4.2.  I suggest deleting information about fig 9 and Young's modulus in line 162 and then repeating this
sentence is section 4.2 with only fig 9 and Young's modulus mentioned.

Section 4.3:  This section is devoted to hardness recovery associated with pre-irradiation.  As such, it would be appropriate to move and modify the information in lines 119-122 from section 3.1 to this section.  
Also, to improve the intended message, the authors might consider retitling this section to something like "influence of pre-irradiation on the hardness and Young's modulus".  If so, both figures (current numbers 6 and 7)
and all associated text should appear here.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for considering and addressing my previous comments.  In my opinion, the present version is much easier to follow and understand the intended messages.  Thus, I recommend that it be accepted for publication.  However, prior to publication, the authors should check line 227 where I believe figure 7, rather than figure 6, is the one being discussed.