Ultra-Low Power Programmable Bandwidth Capacitively-Coupled Chopper Instrumentation Amplifier Using 0.2 V Supply for Biomedical Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper studies low power, programmable bandwidth capacitively-coupled chopper instrumentation amplifier (CCIA) for biomedical applications. The paper explains the design process of the proposed CCIA in great detail, and simulates the proposed circuit to verify the feasibility.

Although the work of building the proposed CCIA circuit has research value, its theoretical innovation is not obvious. Furthermore, Some analysis is not rigorous enough and need to be reconsidered. The following suggestions need to be discussed.
1. There are several issues of insufficient innovation.
- In section 2, the authors propose the circuit diagram with multi-stage structure. Similar configuration has been studied in other published papers. It is suggested to provide a comparison of the advantages of the proposed configuration with those analyzed in relevant studies.

2. There are several points that need to be elaborated.
- It is unacceptable that the authors didn't check the manuscript carefully before submission. There are two Fig.13s. 
- In section 2, the authors claim that “in order to decrease power consumption to just around 320 nW. ”. Please cite the literature or explain in the text.
- The comparison shown in Table.2 is unfair. The data in the manuscript are based on the simulation. Authors should make the comparison based on the same standard.

The writing should be improved. Many typos and grammar mistakes in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our submission and allowing us the opportunity to revise the paper based on the insightful feedback from the reviewer. We have taken each comment into serious consideration and have attempted to address each one in the revised paper. The major changes in the revision have been highlighted, and for the sake of better clarity, minor revision of typo errors and rephrasing of some parts have been made in the uploaded document.

Please find our detailed responses to the reviewer’s comments inline below. Once again, we appreciate the valuable feedback from the reviewer and the chance to submit this revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

some typos in the document. 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to review our submission and allowing us the opportunity to revise the paper based on the insightful feedback from the reviewer. We have taken each comment into serious consideration and have attempted to address each one in the revised paper. The major changes in the revision have been highlighted, and for the sake of better clarity, minor revision of typo errors and rephrasing of some parts have been made in the uploaded document.

Please find our detailed responses to the reviewer’s comments inline below. Once again, we appreciate the valuable feedback from the reviewer and the chance to submit this revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors have addressed the proposed issues. It is fine to be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your acceptance of our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In my opinion, you have correctly answered all my dubts and questions. 

I think thah the paper can be now published.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your acceptance to publish our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx