Electron Impact Ionization of Adenine: Partial Cross Sections
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See my attached document. This is an excellent paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript deals with experimental investigations of the partial ionization cross sections of adenine molecule by electron impact. The authors used used the crossed electron-molecular beam experiment -with Relative Flow Technique to measure the absolute partial ionization cross sections. The authors found that lighter ions tend to have higher appearance energies and within a group of ions with given number of C and N atoms, these energies are shifted as a function of the number of H atoms. They believe that this information may identify the composition of a given ion where more than one possibility exists.
The manuscript is clearly and well written. The obtained results are novel and completely fit to the scope of ATOMS.
So I recommend the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer. Note that he has not suggested any revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors report partial ionization cross sections (PICS) for adenine. The experiments are conducted using a relative flow technique. This work extends an earlier investigation from the authors reporting the total ionization cross section. This is a nice study, and the data are valuable for the modelling community simulating radiation-induced damage.
There are a few items requiring attention in the manuscript prior to its publication.
Define K_s and K_u used in the equation (Line 183).
line 328, Typo: degree symbol
It is usually in determining appearance energies to use a Wannier fit function convolved with the instrumental energy resolution. The authors should attempt this or justify why they have not used this conventional practice.
In discussing the Appearance energies and comparing with prior measurements, the authors use confusing language “close to” as all values agree to within the quoted experimental uncertainties. (Lines 295-300)
“Mass 82” on Line 481 seems out of place?
Figure 5 is mislabelled as Fig 4. This appears to be a direct copy of the authors own Figure from a J Chem Phys Paper. This should be explicitly stated in the Figure and cited in text Line 513.
As the Total Ionisation Cross section is derived as a sum of the PICS it should exactly match and the statement about confidence Line 517 is irrelevant.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
