Corrosion-Resistant Organic Superamphiphobic Coatings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review Corrosion-Resistant Organic Superamphiphobic Coatings try to clarify the design principles and working mechanisms of organic superhydrophobic coatings. The authors of review synthesize liquid-repellent performance, wear resistance, adhesion, antibacterial properties, and self-healing properties of organic superamphiphobic coatings.

The manuscript is well written and concise and it may attract the interest from a narrower community. Figures and tables properly show the data and are facile to interpret and understand. Conclusions are, generally, well presented. Cited references are mostly recent publications.

Due to its novelty, methodology, quality of writing, significance and attitude, this research can be accepted for publication after minor revisions. Detailed comments are as follows:

1.    A few examples of the anticorrosive properties of these coatings are presented. Please give more examples of the anti-corrosion properties of these coatings on metals.

2.    From my point of view, the authors make a general classification of coatings, which should be detailed according to the metal that must be protected against corrosion (lines 33-35). The authors must include some other references.

3.    The authors should provide the methods of obtaining the mentioned coatings, even if they do not present many details because the method of obtaining them is not an easy one (complex process, high cost, and opacity) and there are several attempts to obtain stable superamphiphobic coatings.

4.     Please add the shortcomings of this study and the direction of further research in the "Conclusions" part of the review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a concise review on the subject, competently written indeed. The background of the subject is covered in a way that it is also accessible to non-specialists in the Field. Among others, the review contains a very good introduction into contact angles and surface energies is presented. In particular Young’s equation is discussed critically, which rarely happens. I recommend acceptance of the manuscript after revision of some figures as indicated below.

It appears to me that Figure 1a and 1b are identical, probably something was mixed up. In fact, the figure caption indicates that the normal component of the water-air surface tension should be present, which is, however, not the case. Therefore I assume that Figure 1b should be replaced accordingly.

Figure 3b is hardly readable, the text is by far too small, and Figure 3a is also on the border with regard to readability of he text. I recommend to place Figure 3a above 3b and thus to expand the figures.

Figures 4c, 4d, 4e and 4f are completely unreadable as the letters are tiny.

In Figure 5, a significant part of the text is so small that it cannot be read.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf