We kindly thant the Referee for extremely useful comments and found mistakes in the text. All of comments are adressed below. Comments The presented work concerns important task of development of the targets for a DD neutron generators. However, on my opinion the paper should be slightly revised to increase it's informativity and correctness of sentences. Let me add some remarks and recommendation for the paper improvement 1. Page 2 - Authors claim that their neutron generator is alternative to accelerators, despite it is also definitely accelerator. Often (especially on the Open Systems conf.) D-D fusion based neutron generator means some kind of magnetic confinement system and, use of this term in such content can lead to misunderstanding. The sentence is ammended with comment clarifying the difference. 2. The sentence that targets with power load ~ kW/cm2 do not require “special” cooling is not correct, and ref.[3] evidently not contain confirmation of this sentence. The sentence is ammended with a comment, the link has been added 3. Ref.[2] concerns mainly with D-Li or D-Be accelerator based neutron sources. Actually, the DD electrostatic accelerator with 100 mA current, that is under construction, mentioned in this paper, but the information is insufficient for discussion of it applicability for neutron generation and comparison with other devices. The link added 4. Authors claim, that “more powerful ion sources … would allow a significant increase in the neutron yield up to the desired level” have been developed. In fact, maximal parameters achieved is 45 kV voltage with pulse duration 1.5 ms, that is very far from BNCT requirements. Let me ask the author to re-formulate this sentence more correctly. The sentence has beem reformulated 5. Actually, production of the ion beam with current density 1 kA/cm2 is great achievement, but BNCT problem is not required concentrated beams, and often the ion beams distribute over ~100 cm2 surface for decreasing heat load. That is true, on one hand, but no source of exiting ones is not able to deliver 1 A of total beam. 6. The paper is not contain information about dimensions and thickness of the foils, which is saturated in the experiment. Moreover, according Ref.[4], Fig.3b concerns data of SIMS analysis of titanium coating on the tungsten wafer. AUTHORS PAINT OUT CAPTURE TO THE BOTTOM BLACK CURVE –“TUNGSTEN” - AND PRESENT THIS PICTURE AS IF IT TAKEN FOR TITANIUM FOIL!!!!! On my opinion, such behavior is absolutely unacceptable for a scientist. We are sorry for mixing up the figures. It was found out that the data for titanium foil had been corrupted, and one of our students replaced the figure with the one from previous investigations. However, the SIMS analysis of presented target showed nearly the same dependenices, this has been added to the text. 7. Authors write, that the chamber was filled by deuterium, when the target temperature reach 300 deg, This sentence disagree with Fig.3a, where pressure start to grow together with temperature. Maybe, it is useful to explain in more details dynamics of pressure in this figure. The part decribing the process had errors and has been corrected 8. It is not clear, why authors did not try to estimate an amount of deuterium, captured to the foil. On my opinion, it is this information is of interest to readers. We did such estimations, but it appeared that precision of estimations is extremely low, as deuterim is absorbed not only by foil, but by target heater, copper sealings and even chamber as well. We will do such estimations in a nem target chamber, which will be free of deuterium-absrobing materials. 9. Data in the table 1 is not informative without information about beam accelerating voltage (45 kV?). Moreover, on a good note is to derive “mean” deuterium concentration in the titanium and compare neutron yield from deuterium ice with theoretical estimation. The estimation and beam energy have been added to the table Despite of mentioned drawbacks, the paper can be accepted for publishing after revision.