Superspreading Surfactant on Hydrophobic Porous Substrates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

I found that the wetting behavior of small droplets of aqueous trisiloxane surfactant solutions was investigated on hydrophobic PVDF porous membrane and non-porous hydrophobic PVDF film. I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and find that the concept is well developed and contains sufficient novelty. However, there are some minor comments that should be addressed before accepting the manuscript.

1-      It is suggested that the language of the manuscript be improved. While it is acceptable, enhancing the language would be beneficial.

2-      The subtitle located at line 60 is labeled as "Partial Wetting." It is necessary to revise this subtitle to adhere to the journal guidelines. Additionally, there are other subtitles in need of correction. At line 9, there is a grammatical error in the text: "droplets of aqueous trisiloxane surfactant solutions: superspreader S 240)".

3-      The quality of Figures 4 and 5 is not up to par, and they require revision to improve their appearance. Consider using black instead of gray color for the lines and numbers, and remove the chart title.

4-      In addition, the concluding section appears to be insufficient in length. It is recommended to expand upon this section and proffer recommendations for future research endeavors.

5-      Kindly examine the referencing style with care, specifically in reference [1], as there are some missing pieces of information.

Author Response

1. The language was revised.
2. Done.
3. Unfortunately I'm unable to make these by myself but the student already gone.
4. Extended.
5. I checked the references.

Reviewer 2 Report

Submitted manuscript deals with the penetration and wetting processes occurring at interfaces. An introductory part includes the theory of wetting and spreading supplemented by the schemes and graphs. Behaviour of selected surfactant on the porous and non-porous substrates are discussed in further part.

Unfortunately, the whole text suffers from a great number of typing errors and grammatical mistakes that have to be corrected (some of them are listed below). There is a confusion in Figures numbering, which is not mentioned in the text chronologically. Moreover, Figure 6 (line 146) is discussed and is missing in the paper.

The paper, in its actual form, does not meet the criteria necessary for publication in the Colloids and Interfaces Journal. English language and style has to be edited, and quality of the graphs and results discussion have to be corrected and improved before the further processing of the paper.

The issues that have to be considered by the authors:

Line 60 – title Partial wetting should be in italics, without a period at the end. The same for the title on line 155. The titles of subchapters should be unified as regards the name of the applied surfactant and type of the substrate, to be clearer.

There should be reference to Figure 1 within the text.

Equations should be numbered and given in separated lines, as well as the explanations of the individual variables, which could make the text organization clearer. E.g. Darcy’c equation on line 52, and others that follow.

I am considering if the critical aggregation concentration (CAC) is the right concept or of it should not be replaced with critical micelle concentration (CMC). I consider CAC associated more with the interaction between surfactant and polymer resulting in the formation of hemimicelles. It should be checked in the literature and reconsidered by the authors.

Figure 5 legend does not correspond to the graphs, no volume dependence is mentioned there. I am afraid there is some mistake in given data (in the initial phase of the graph).

The quality of graphs has to be improved.

Line 82 – deoplet should be rewritten to droplet

Line 83 – oentration should be probably rewritten to penetration

Line 87 – a space should be inserted between wetting and [2]

Line 98 – suprtsprearers should be rewritten to superspreaders

Line 101 – visicles to vesicles

Line 132 – describes should be rewritten to described

Line 148 – check the words behavious and aqueosous

Line 158 – check the word howver

Line 159 – check the word ghe

Line 190 – check the grammar (It is shows…)

Author Response

Thank you  for a very careful reading. The manuscript was edited according to all your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors of submitted manuscript made an effort to deal with the most of suggested comments and issues. I have some minor notes that still should be considered (listed below). Then, I recommend the submitted manuscript for publication in the Colloids and Interfaces Journal.

Line 14 – check the word “concertation”

Line 196 – the graph should be deleted?

Line 215 – penetrate should be replaced with penetration

Line 218 – “it is shows” should be rewritten into correct English (it was shown??). All this sentence (It is shows that at concentrations above CAC or above…) should be reformulated to be more understandable and to make conclusions clearer.  

I would appreciate if authors could define the difference between the terms: “critical aggregation concentration” and “critical micelle concentration” in their conception.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments, the manuyscrip0t was revised as suggested. I do n ot know where I can explain the difference between CMC and CAC, that is I decided to explain it here: CMC means aggregation into micelles only, CAC is more general (micelles, vesicles, ...). It is now commonly accepted that superspreaders doe snot form micelles but form vesicles.