## 3 Results  
Table 2 shows the summary of the BPN results obtained for different test conditions tested in anti-icing and de-icing modes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Condition** & **Product** & **Mode** & **BPN** \\ \hline Dry & none & - & \(50\pm 3\) \\ (RWYCC6) & Water & - & \(38\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-5} Wet & KFO & - & \(40\pm 2\) \\ (RWYCC5) & KAC & - & \(36\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & HYB & - & \(39\pm 1\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Removed Snow (RWYCC4)} & Untreated & - & \(33\pm 3\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & KFO & De-icing & \(48\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & KFO & Anti-icing & \(48\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & KAC & De-icing & \(40\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & KAC & Anti-icing & \(38\pm 2\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & HYB & De-icing & \(47\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & HYB & Anti-icing & \(41\pm 1\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: BPN results obtained in the RWYCC conditions. Figure 4: De-icing and anti-icing protocols. Firstly, the main winter conditions prescribed by the GRF were reproduced in the laboratory and the obtained BPN values were correlated with the RWYCC ratings. Since the RWYCC has been established as a function of the state of the runway, by taking into consideration the runway friction index (RFI), it is inherent that the results should correlate. These results are presented in Figure 5. The first condition is the dry condition, with a RWYCC of 6, while the evaluated BPN is as high as 50 \(\pm\) 3, indicating that the surface skid is very low. Therefore, this can be considered the safest runway condition. This value is much lower than those available in the literature [24,25,27]. This is explained well by the difference between the surface's macro- and microtexture. The pavement tested is less coarse than those used in other research [25,27]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Condition** & **Product** & **Mode** & **BPN** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Snow (RWYCC3)} & Untreated & - & \(23\pm 2\) \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{3}{*}{KFO} & De-icing & \(32\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(45\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{3}{*}{KAC} & De-icing & \(40\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(43\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & De-icing & \(31\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(34\pm 1\) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Wet Snow (RWYCC3)} & Untreated & - & \(19\pm 2\) \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multirow{3}{*}{KFO} & De-icing & \(45\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(35\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(40\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(33\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(33\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & HYB & De-icing & \(32\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(34\pm 1\) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Ice (RWYCC1)} & Untreated & - & \(17\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & KFO & De-icing & \(48\pm 2\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(37\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & KAC & De-icing & \(47\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(30\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & HYB & De-icing & \(42\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(34\pm 1\) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Snow on ice (RWYCC0)} & Untreated & - & \(11\pm 2\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & HYB & De-icing & \(42\pm 1\) \\ \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(49\pm 1\) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4}  & & De-icing & \(48\pm 1\) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(39\pm 1\) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4}  & & HYB & De-icing & \(42\pm 1\) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-4}  & & Anti-icing & \(44\pm 1\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._In the wet condition (RWYCC of 5), the BPN reduced significantly to 38 \(\pm\) 1. This value corresponded to a reduction of 24% when compared to that obtained with dry conditions. [PERSON] et al. (2017) and [PERSON] et al. (2014) observed the same decrease when the surface was wet, with 30% lower and 25% lower values, respectively. This condition remains secure on the runway. Further, the removed snow condition corresponded to the compacted snow condition as described in the GRF, with a RWYCC of 4 for both, and a measured BPN of 33 \(\pm\) 3.