Next Article in Journal
Improved Adhesion of the DLC Coating Using HiPIMS with Positive Pulses and Plasma Immersion Pretreatment
Next Article in Special Issue
Structure and Characterization of Vacuum Arc Deposited Carbon Films—A Critical Overview
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Double-Pulse Electrodeposition Parameters on the Performance of Nickel/Nanodiamond Composite Coatings
Previous Article in Special Issue
Excellent Seizure and Friction Properties Achieved with a Combination of an a-C:H:Si DLC-Coated Journal and an Aluminum Alloy Plain Bearing
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Superlow Friction of a-C:H Coatings in Vacuum: Passivation Regimes and Structural Characterization of the Sliding Interfaces

Coatings 2021, 11(9), 1069; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11091069
by Takuya Kuwahara 1, Yun Long 2, Maria-Isabel De Barros Bouchet 2, Jean Michel Martin 2, Gianpietro Moras 1 and Michael Moseler 1,3,4,5,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Coatings 2021, 11(9), 1069; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11091069
Submission received: 10 August 2021 / Revised: 31 August 2021 / Accepted: 2 September 2021 / Published: 4 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tribology and Mechanical Behavior of Amorphous Carbon Coatings)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents research on the superlubricity of the hydrogenated diamond-like carbon (a-C:H) interfaces in vacuum. The theoretical and experimental results proved that this superlubricity of the a-C:H coating can be obtained by tuning the local hydrogen content and by this means the interfacial mechanochemistry.

I appreciate that this paper is original and brings an important contribution to the field of coatings. The paper must be improved before publication, as its structure is not very suggestive to the reader and the validation of the theoretical results with experimental ones is somehow truncated, the test being very short.

Major revision:

  1. The experimental section is not suggestive, as the friction coefficient began to increase after 120 cycles. In my opinion, the testing time is not obvious for validation. This is the reason for which the wear is almost insignificant. I advise the authors to present extended results, for at least one hour of experimental testing. 
  2. The deposition parameters for the plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process are missing.
  3. Can the authors explain the spread of results from Figure 2a? How many similar simulations were made for each testing condition?
    Which are the confidence limits?
  4. Eliminate the comments from the captions of the Figures and move them to the results section.
  5. The legend is missing from Figure 3.
  6. The Discussions and conclusions section must be divide into two separate sections: Discussions and Conclusions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded to all the questions and amended the paper as suggested. I recommend the publication of this paper in its actual form.

Back to TopTop