Electrothermally Activated CNT/GNP-Doped Anti-icing and De-Icing Systems: A Comparison Study of 3D Printed Circuits versus Coatings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

Manuscript Number: Applsci-1861443
Title: Electrothermally activated CNT/GNP doped Anti-icing and  De-Icing Systems: a comparison study of 3D printed circuits

The manuscript reports the performance of CNT/GNP doped materials against anti and de-icing system. Different tests were performed to prove the performance of the material. Although the topic of the study is interesting and suitable for the Journal, the novelty and integrality of the investigation of the present study needs to improve. The opinions and comments regarding this manuscript are as follow,

(1)  Please rearrange the keywords according to alphabetical order.

(2) The authors didn’t discuss the influence of morphology on anti-icing performance.

(3) Please mention the effect of coating on surface energy, contact area and adhesion between water and surface.

(4)  Please mention the purity grade of reagents and chemical in materials and method session.

(5)  The author needs to perform stability and recyclability test.

Some references are not relevant, I suggest to cite recent published papers. Suggested one

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2022.06.036.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Comments to the Reviewer #1

The manuscript reports the performance of CNT/GNP doped materials against anti and de-icing system. Different tests were performed to prove the performance of the material. Although the topic of the study is interesting and suitable for the Journal, the novelty and integrality of the investigation of the present study needs to improve. The opinions and comments regarding this manuscript are as follow,

(1)  Please rearrange the keywords according to alphabetical order.

Thank you for your suggestion. The keywords were rearranged into alphabetical order.

(2) The authors didn’t discuss the influence of morphology on anti-icing performance.

Thank you for your suggestion. Different geometries of the 3D printed circuits were previously tested in an already published paper [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.110090]. In this regard, we used in the present paper the geometry of the 3D printed circuits that showed the best results in terms of Joule heating.

On the other hand, it was mentioned in the present paper that the morphology of the 3D printed circuits and, more specifically, the relatively low cross-sectional area of the printed ribbons, slightly reduces the electrical conductivity and, thus, their self-heating capabilities. Moreover, the coatings, which presented a higher overall cross-sectional area, showed a higher de-icing performance which is related to their lower electrical resistance and thus their higher intensity, being the Joule heating performance proportional to the square of the latter one.

(3) Please mention the effect of coating on surface energy, contact area and adhesion between water and surface.

As it is mentioned in the article, the final system would require an additional top layer, so these tests would be of more interest in this one. In the article, de-icing capabilities are only associated to heating performance, not to differences in adhesion of the ice layer to the coating.

Thank you for the comment, we think is important as well and thus, we will consider these tests in next steps of this research on the final top layer.

(4)  Please mention the purity grade of reagents and chemical in materials and method session.

Purity grade of reagents was added to the revised manuscript.

(5)  The author needs to perform stability and recyclability test.

Thank you for your suggestion. The authors performed stability tests to similar materials in some previously published papers [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/abd343; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11167534], showing excellent results in terms of repeatability in heating and under exposure to long heating times. However, the authors consider that, despite being interesting, the recyclability tests are out of the scope of this research study.

Some references are not relevant, I suggest to cite recent published papers. Suggested one

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2022.06.036.

The references were revised in the new version of the manuscript. Thank you for your suggested reference. The suggested references were added to the revised version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Very good work

Author Response

Comments to the Reviewer #2

Extensive editing of English language and style required

Very good work

Thank you so much. Once accepted for publishing, the editorial office will provide language and style revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1) There are some grammar mistakes and typo errors in the manuscript. The authors should carefully revise them.

2) What is the composition ratio of DGEBA and TETA?

3) What is the dimension of the printed circuit? Are the cross-section areas in Table 1 statistical values? The authors should supplement the details in the Experimental section.

4) In Table 1, the authors mentioned the thickness of coating is around 188 mm, I doubt this value.

5) What the mechanical properties of the coating layer? It is recommended to add this characterization in the manuscript.

Author Response

Comments to the Reviewer #3

1) There are some grammar mistakes and typo errors in the manuscript. The authors should carefully revise them.

Thank you for your comment. If accepted for publishing, the editorial office will provide language and style revision.

2) What is the composition ratio of DGEBA and TETA?

Thank you for noticing that. The composition ratio is 100.0:14.3 by weight (DGEBA:TETA). This was added to the materials and methods section of the revised manuscript.

3) What is the dimension of the printed circuit? Are the cross-section areas in Table 1 statistical values? The authors should supplement the details in the Experimental section

Both the printed circuits and coatings were applied to the same area (5 x 5 cm²). Then we measured the height, width and cross-sectional area of some coatings/ribbons by image analysis using ImageJ software, whose results are shown in Table 1. All showed values represent the mean values of several measurements with their respective standard deviation. It was addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

4) In Table 1, the authors mentioned the thickness of coating is around 188 mm, I doubt this value.

We apologize for that mistake, thank you for noticing that. The real measurements are in µm. It was modified in the revised manuscript.

5) What the mechanical properties of the coating layer? It is recommended to add this characterization in the manuscript.

Thank you for your suggestion. The mechanical characterization has been already addressed in other previously published papers with similar materials [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2022.106829], so in this communication paper we decided to focus on the comparison of printed circuits versus coatings for de-icing purposes. As it is mentioned in the article, the final system would require an additional top layer, so these tests would be of more interest in this one.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for revision, i am satisfied, just check minor mistakes of spellings, figure numbering, all references has been mentioned in text. Figures quality