Magneto-Acoustic Imaging in Biology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper “Magneto-Acoustic Imaging in Biology” brings a very interesting and rich scientific review on Magneto-Acoustic Tomography and Magneto-Acoustic Electrical Tomography (MAET). The author made a detailed temporal history of scientific evolution, mentioning and valuing the scientific contribution promoted by each group from different parts of the world.

We thank the author for this excellent work in organizing all the main scientific contributions related to this topic. It will be a great support for future research in the area.

Below, we point out a few paragraphs/words that need to be revised to improve scientific understanding in the manuscript.

1 1-      Page 3, line 69:  In the phrase “ The axial position of each layer could be determined from the arrival time of the ultrasonic pulse, with a later time corresponding to a deeper layer because the acoustic wave needed 70 more time to propagate to the transducer” This paragraph is very poor do describe the use of pulse/eco ultrasound to register distance or the position of different impedance layer into the sample. Suggestion: The axial position of each tissue layer with different acoustic impedance could be determined using a pulse/eco ultrasound transducer.

22 -      Page 5, line 141: In the sentence “The arrival time of the ultrasound pulse indicated the distance from the source to the transducer”, we suggest replacing the term “ultrasound pulse” with “acoustic signal”. In this article, the term "Ultrasound Pulse" should be reserved for experimental setups where an ultrasound pulse is applied;

33 -      Page 7, line 232: to fix the word analyzed.

44 -      Page 8, line 290. Change the article “The” by the Subject pronouns “They”;

55 -      Page 9,  line 355: Remove the article “the”. It is duplicated.

Author Response

I thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which have improved the manuscript. I respond to each comment below, and indicate changes in the manuscript with red text.

 

Reviewer 1

“1      Page 3, line 69:  In the phrase “ The axial position of each layer could be determined from the arrival time of the ultrasonic pulse, with a later time corresponding to a deeper layer because the acoustic wave needed 70 more time to propagate to the transducer” This paragraph is very poor do describe the use of pulse/eco ultrasound to register distance or the position of different impedance layer into the sample. Suggestion: The axial position of each tissue layer with different acoustic impedance could be determined using a pulse/eco ultrasound transducer.”

The paragraph was not discussing echoes from reflections off of tissues boundaries corresponding to changes in acoustic impedance. It was discussing detecting an acoustic signals that were produced via the Lorentz force effect at different positions in the tissue. I have revised the paragraph to make this clearer.

“2      Page 5, line 141: In the sentence “The arrival time of the ultrasound pulse indicated the distance from the source to the transducer”, we suggest replacing the term “ultrasound pulse” with “acoustic signal”. In this article, the term "Ultrasound Pulse" should be reserved for experimental setups where an ultrasound pulse is applied;”

The change was made, as the reviewer suggested.

“3      Page 7, line 232: to fix the word analyzed.”

The error was corrected, as the reviewer suggested.

“4      Page 8, line 290. Change the article “The” by the Subject pronouns “They”;”

The error was corrected, as the reviewer suggested.

“5     Page 9,  line 355: Remove the article “the”. It is duplicated.”

The error was corrected, as the reviewer suggested.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This article provides a detailed chronological review of the application development of the magnetoacoustic method for conductivity measurement. The article focuses on magnetic induction magnetoacoustic tomography (MAT-MI) and magnetoacoustic electric tomography (MAET). This review is clear in sentences and concise in graphics and text.

The comments and suggestions of the reviewers are as follows: 

1.The articles cited in this review have a long time span, and have systematically introduced and sorted out the development of magnetoacoustic measurement technology. However, the full text focuses too much on the early development process of technology, and insufficiently describes the technological development in recent years.

2. The full text expounds the scientific research achievements of different authors, but the description is more like a simple list. There is not enough point of view between the results to guide the reader's mind-shifting.

It is recommended that the author reorganize before submitting the manuscript.

Author Response

I thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which have improved the manuscript. I respond to each comment below, and indicate changes in the manuscript with red text.

Reviewer 2

“1.The articles cited in this review have a long time span, and have systematically introduced and sorted out the development of magnetoacoustic measurement technology. However, the full text focuses too much on the early development process of technology, and insufficiently describes the technological development in recent years.”

I have increased the discussion of technological developments in recent years, as the reviewer suggested. These changes are primarily at the end of sections 3 and especially 4.

“2. The full text expounds the scientific research achievements of different authors, but the description is more like a simple list. There is not enough point of view between the results to guide the reader's mind-shifting.”

I have modified the text to try to provide additional insights that go beyond merely listing who did what, as the reviewer suggested.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf