Scanning Near-Field Optical Microscopy: Recent Advances in Disordered and Correlated Disordered Photonics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the proposed review article, the author summarizes the results related to the application of scanning near-field optical microscopy (SNOM) to the study of disordered photonic structures. It is shown how the use of SNOM can go far beyond sub-wavelength imaging, allowing for the understanding of light-matter interaction at the nanoscale and the engineering of photonic resonances. In particular, three applications of SNOM are examined in depth: i) controlled oxidation for tuning the peak wavelength of localized modes in random photonic structures; ii) use of the SNOM probe for reversible, fine, and large spectral tuning of modes by exerting local forces on mechanically reconfigurable resonators; iii) characterization of luminescent hyperuniform disordered (HuD) structures in the optical range (e.g., retrieval of collective maps of modes present in a given spectral region or maps filtered around a single peak wavelength; checking the robustness of HuD replicas in relation to both Anderson-localized modes and delocalized modes; retrieval of local density of states (LDOS) associated with nanocavities embedded in a HuD planar environment).

The review is well-written, and its content mainly describes the principal results obtained by the research group the author belongs to in relation to this specific topic. This may represent a limitation for the presented manuscript, but given the specificity of the subject (SNOM applied not only to characterization but also to the manipulation of resonances within disordered and hyperuniform photonic structures), the limitation to specific references from a specific group was substantially inevitable.

Finally, given the high quality of the presented work, I suggest accepting it for publication in Photonics after very minor revisions, which are substantially related to typos or similar issues, listed below.

 

-       Some acronyms (SNOM, LDOS), even if defined in the abstract, have to be defined again when they appear for the first time in the main text of the manuscript (row 44 for SNOM and row 244 for LDOS).

-       Row 61: replace HuD with HuD media.

-       Row 125: substitute “we” with an impersonal expression, since the author of the submitted manuscript does not appear among the authors of reference 10.

-       Row 170: PCCs is not defined. Replace “PCCs” with “photonic crystal cavities (PCCs)”.

-       Row 257: replace R_d with R^d.

-       Row 306: lambda=1172nm (missing space).

-       Row 323: replace “confirm” with “confirmed”.

-       Row 378: replace HUD with HuD.

-       Figure 5 has been indicated as Figure 4 both in the caption and throughout the text. Please correct.

-       Row 411: replace (d) with (e).

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for the carefully prepared review that you have provided. I have implemented all the suggestions and corrected all the typos you have identified, and for which I apologyze. 

Kind regards

Nicoletta Granchi

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by N. Granchi is a review presenting the recent progress in scanning near field optical microscopy on the field of disordered and correlated disordered photonic materials. It is valuable description combinig several aspects and benefits possible to obtain in near-field imaging of the Anderson modes in disordered materials, includng also methods of tunning the response from them.

I do not have strictly scientific comments to the manuscript, as it presents the results already published in high impact scientific journals. However, I have technical and editorial suggestrions to improve the manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- When Figure 1 is discussed, I would suggest to put into the caption information that in panel d) red line show the results of tunning the material properties by laser illumination, and green curve shows the results for other spot, which is not illuminated - it is some kind of reference therefore. 

-line 195 - when the most important parameters are listed in the text, I suppose, there should be also deltaE used instead of just delta, similarly, as in other cases deltaF and deltad parameters were used.

-line 343 and below - I would suggest to use structure and replica terms, as it is on the Figure, instead of Replica I, Replica II, moreover, there is missing bracket in line 348.

-line 378 HUD acronym is used, but it was used as HuD in other places in the text

-line 392 - cavity resonances are listed in different order than in corresponding figure - it shoud be improved

-line 251 - photonic band gap is defined as BPG, but it should be PBG, as used in other places in the text.

-the editorial of the manuscript become messy in its second part, especially when it comes to figure numbering and figure references in the text. It starts in line 221, where Figure 2e should be instead of Fig 3e. And in many places below wrong numbers are used for figures, in particular for figure 4 and 5. Moreover, even figure 5 is labelled in its caption as figure 4. It should be improved.

-there also appear various conventions to write figures references with or without spaces (Fig.3b or Fig. 3b) - it should be uniform. Also other references appear in various conventions (line 34: ".[1,2] ". Moreover, there is a lot of double spaces in the text.

-PCC term is not defined

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for the carefully prepared review that you have provided. I have implemented all the suggestions and corrected all the typos that you were able to identify and for which I apologyze.

Kind regards

Nicoletta Granchi