You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles

Review Reports

Coatings2026, 16(1), 13;https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings16010013 
(registering DOI)
by
  • Siyu Yan1,
  • Zhuang Tang2,* and
  • Bichen Pan2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The novelty of the study is good but there are problems to be addressed. It must be revised accordingly based on the suggestions in attached. It can be acceptable after incorporating all the suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Further comments are available in attached file.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their manuscript entitled “Synergistic Aging Resistance and Autonomous Self-Healing in Trimethylolpropane Triglycidyl Ether-Based Anti-Icing Coatings“, the authors report on the synthesis and in-depth characterization of the anti-icing properties of a series of PDMS-based co-polymers. The most important characteristics of the co-polymers for their intended use as anti-icing coatings (on aluminium substrates) are described in a comprehensive manner. According to these results, the suggested co-polymer exhibits superior properties compared to other coatings with anti-icing effects reported in the literature. Besides the description of the anti-icing properties, the durability of the co-polymer coatings and the retention of their anti-icing effect are evaluated and complement the scope of the manuscript.

I recommend acceptance in the MDPI journal coatings after checking the order of references (e.g., I do not find references 2, 3, or 5 in the introduction).

Check the average freezing temperature for PAT2 in lines 231-232.

The mass loss after abrasion reported in line 343 requires a reference to the total mass (of the coating).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, the authors have proposed a facile fabrication method for anti-icing coatings with anti-aging and self-healing properties. The research is fascinating, and a strong case can be made of its appeal to the audience of MDPI coatings. However, the following comments must be addressed before publishing online.

 

After careful reading, I would like to offer my comments as follows.

 

  1. A minor comment – please ensure the citations are correctly reflected in the Introduction. Currently, Line 45 shows [ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND].

 

  1. In Section 2.3.4, can the authors expound on the test standard followed to evaluate the UV aging of the anti-icing coatings? Do the presented testing conditions represent an aging behavior in an outdoor, exterior environment?

 

For an exterior aging, I expect to see a more rigorous aging test with an exposure period of min. 5000 hours. Additionally, can the authors provide the dosage rate of UV irradiation and how it translates to amount of exposure received on the earth’s surface?

 

  1. In Section 3.3, for the sake of readers understanding, it would be helpful if the authors can expound on the mechanism of ice formation and how hydrogen bonding delays icing behavior. Why do we observe a better anti-icing performance in this study than the ones presented in Table 1?

 

  1. In Table 1, were all the coating systems tested on a similar setup and under the same testing conditions? Trying to understand if these results can be looked from the perspective of an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

  1. Figure 4 is missing from the manuscript. Please include it.

 

  1. In Section 3.5, how many cycles of self-healing can one expect to maintain the anti-icing behavior before it shows significant deterioration? Have the authors performed multiple cyclical testing to observe efficiencies?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted as its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their sincere efforts in addressing the questions raised by the reviewers. I believe the manuscript is in a good shape to be published.