Dear authors, The manuscript related to the surface recovery investigation of silicone rubber composites for outdoor electrical insulation under accelerated temperature and humidity has been reviewed. As one of the selected reviewers, I read your manuscript carefully. I think many improvements are still needed to be carried out. 1. Do the author agree that the article is not very novel and does not provide any unique information. There are several articles with quite similar results. What was the purpose of repeating similar works? 2. The first paragraph of this manuscript is unnecessary and not very attractive. It should be deleted. The authors should instead address the main issue and describe the need for this research in the introduction. 3. The introduction has not been written critically. The introduction rephrases the work that has been done. I could not find any discussion or opinion about previous research.? 4. Why was the design of the experiment not carefully planned? There are several optimization models which could be followed. I wonder why authors preferred performing each test separately. 5. The most serious flaw is the lack of a specific research problem compared to previous research. In the absence of such a research problem, it is unclear what new issues you intended to solve and the dimensions of these problems. 6. The sourcing statement of chemicals is unclear. Please clearly rewrite the source of each chemical used in this experiment. 7. Page 4, line 175, correct superscripts. 8. Please add which mode of FTIR was used in section 3.1.2. 9. Either remove ATH from keywords or consider adding a complete form of it. 10. The data analysis of the sample in section 3 is not statistically considerable. 11. The authors are encouraged to prove the validity or repeatability of the test. 12. The authors are recommended to add a schematic diagram to show the binding mechanism clearly. 13. Check subscripts carefully. e.g., Check page 15; SiO2 should be written correctly. 14. What is the scientific justification for 118 contact angles in Figure 4 (a)? Why does the trend suddenly decrease here? 15. The same question applies to Figure 3(b), why 114? Also, I am in doubt about the angle SMC 15% SiO2. Would you mind checking if the images are appropriately organized? Also, consider rechecking this test to verify the contact angles. 16. Figures 6 to 10 are useless unless the authors highlight the difference in the Figures. The authors are strongly recommended to highlight the changes over the figure using some Figure editing software so that the readers might follow the idea of the authors. Do not assume that the placing Figures would be self-explanatory. Consider adding large-size HD images, while some images that are not obvious for discussion should be moved to supplementary information of the article. 17. The quality of Figure 11-15 is unacceptable; The authors are encouraged to plot each set of the data by an overlapping curve while discussing the differences due to treatments. 18. Table 4-8 must be supported by references to ensure that each peak is rightly assigned. 19. The data statement should be added to the manuscript. 20. The quality of language can be improved. 21. What are the prospects? Add a separate section or briefly add few sentences in the conclusion section? Also, no research limitation is explained aligned with the research problem. The research limitations describe what dimensions of the problem are excluded by you and your study's boundaries. 22. There are too many self-citations, which must be avoided. I look forward to receiving the revision and reviewing the newer version. Best of luck