Enhanced Modeling for Analysis of Fine Particulate Interactions with Coated Surfaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article offers a contribution to the field of the universe exploration research by addressing dust adhesion to solar panels and presenting computational model for assessing anti-dust coatings.

I do recognize article as interesting and providing new insights. However, to enhance the robustness of the study and its applicability to real-world scenarios, it would be beneficial to discuss potential methods for validating the computational model and simulations. Given the challenges of replicating Martian conditions on Earth, it's understandable that direct experimental validation might not be feasible. Nevertheless, a discussion on the prospects of indirect validation or comparative analysis using available experimental data on dust adhesion in similar environments could add value. This could involve comparing the model's predictions with empirical data from dust interactions with solar panels under Earth conditions or in simulated Martian environments, if such data exist.

Moreover, considering the practical implications of this research for the design and maintenance of solar panels, it would be insightful to explore the model's applicability to existing anti-dust coatings currently used on photovoltaic (PV) cells.

Do authors see direct way to expand model by adding vibrations event to remove dust from PV surface?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please note the following observations:

 1. In the last paragraph of the Introduction section, please highlight the main aspects related to the novelty of the performed analysis and also discuss the practical implications of the findings for Martian surface exploration missions.

2. In the performed investigation, you used an idealized uniform sphere as a representative physical model.  One observation regarding the investigation is the possibility of considering alternative particle shapes beyond the idealized uniform sphere used as the representative physical model. While the uniform sphere provides a simplified starting point for analysis, real-world particles often exhibit diverse shapes, such as irregular, angular, or elongated geometries. 

3. Figure 1 should be remade. It is difficult to be understood. Similar for Figure 3.

4. In equation (2), the terms are not explained or related to  Figure 1. Please revise.

5.  The formula (4) is taken from a source? If it is, please indicate the source.

6.  In formula (6), please define R1 and R2 for better understanding.

7.  In the paper, there are 3 kind of bulk materials, SiO2, Fe2O3, Fe3O4. Please specify why you chose these particular materials. The same observation for the plate material.

8. You introduce the variable Ang to denote the angle between the smooth plate and the horizontal plane. Please explain why did you chose these particular values for Ang, for better understanding (Figure 4).

9. How did you obtain the graphs from figure 6? You made an interpolation? How many data points have you record?

10. How it was obtained the normal force Fn? From EDEM software or it was calculated with the equations presented in the article? Please clarify.

11. Please detail how you defined the coated surface in DEM model.

12. Regarding Figure 7, please explain why you used these particular values for Ang.

13. It is not clear presented the relation between the theoretical model presented and the results of DEM analysis.

14. The authors do not present in details the settings of the performed numerical analysis (for example the friction coefficient values, physical and mechanical properties of the particles, etc.).  The authors did not conduct a sensitivity analysis, and therefore the accuracy of the calculation results is  questionable. Comparison with similar studied it could be useful to verify the accuracy of the obtained results.

15.  The discussion section must be improved.

16. Conclusions should be completed in order to be an explanation of the causes and effects of the phenomena presented in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for all responses.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved and can be accepted in its present form. Thank you for adressing my comments.