Dear Ifeffit members, I received the following two comments. " Comment 1: Authors have fixed the amplitude reduction factor (SO2) to a fixed value (0.85). This factor is specific to particular chemical compound and sample preparation and quality (mostly homogeneity), measurement method (e.g. absorption, fluorescence). Authors can find in literature [e.g. Rehr2000] that SO2 for ideal samples (having no other effects) represent multielectron effects, which by definition depend on valence and ligands. Even more, SO2 is correlated with Debye-Waller factor (σ²) and coordination number (CN), so any chosen value will be compensated by CN and σ². As coordination numbers are used as quantitative indicators in discussion and following conclusions. I would request to clarify the selection criteria for SO2 values and advise to revise this approach (i.e. not to fix SO2 as the same value for all samples). I do not expect drastic changes in obtained CN values, but this should be tested. Comment 2: As I mentioned previously, coordination number (CN) is correlated with Debye-Waller factor (σ²). My question is: how this correlation is managed (eliminated)? Most probably (in FEFFIT) this is done by using 3 separate values for n (1,2,3), where n is a power in expression chi(k)*(k^n). " I used Artemis for the calculation. 1) Because S02 and CN are multiplication relations in the EXAFS equation, as we usually do, we fixed S02 to obtain CN for unknown samples. 2) there are outputs regarding the correlation between different fitting parameters from Artemis. Is there a way to manage or eliminate the correlation as the reviewer mentioned using Artemis or Larch? If you also could give me some suggestions to answer the comments, that would also be greatly appreciated. -- Best Regards, Peng Liu School of Environmental Studies China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei Province, PR China https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qUtyvokAAAAJ&hl=en http://grzy.cug.edu.cn/049121/zh_CN/index.htm