Round-Robin Study for Ice Adhesion Tests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript "Round-robin study for ice adhesion tests" have conducted an impressive study with several test centers and test methods for studying ice adhesion on surfaces. The results and findings are certainly interesting and can be used further. The manuscript is clearly written and the text is supported with helpful illustrations. However, the measured ice adhesions vary significantly between test methods and test centers, although all test centers (except CRREL) used the same surfaces prepared by IFAM. This problem has been known (see Work and Lian, 2018) and was to be expected at the start of the study. Despite the deviating data, relative comparisons of the study results show a trend for low ice adhesion. It is unclear why the study design includes four surfaces with relatively moderate variation in wettability (CA: 83 - 110°, Ra: 0.05 - 1.5 um)? Why were more hydrophilic or (super)hydrophobic surfaces not included in the study in order to substantiate findings and possibly draw clearer conclusions? The obtained results and conclusions are certainly useful, but the applicability seems to be rather limited.

Below are some minor issues that should be addressed:

1.      P. 5, Table 2 and 3: standard deviations should be provided for the measured quantities.

2.      P. 12, line 374: “deionized water was recommended”. Was deionized water not consistently used? If not, then this should be specified.

3.      P19, Table 7: could the data be presented in a diagram instead of this large table? This would help to improve clarity

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, four kinds of ice adhension tests were conducted and the comparison have been made for the obtained results. Authors want to obtain a unified standard to assess the performance of potential icephobic surfaces and coatings. The works in the paper is enough and practically meaningful. But I still have a query. What is the suggested unified standard to assess the performance of potential icephobic surfaces and coatings?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research is highly beneficial in guiding further investigations into anti-icing materials by providing a systematic comparison of ice adhesion on a diverse range of substrates. I strongly recommend accepting it as it is.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Based on reviewer comments we have modified the manuscript and highlighted this in the resubmitted file.