A Smart Anticorrosive Epoxy Coating Based on Graphene Oxide/Functional Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Controlled Release of Corrosion Inhibitors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your manuscript with great attention and interests.  Overall, the manuscript is poor written. The main topic of study is interesting, but there is not enough scientific contribution in the manuscript, and not good enough to publish.

There are few grammar mistakes and it is not easy to follow the sentences between each session. Unfortunately, the manuscript is not well written to catch the interests and requires additional work and effort. I recommend to publish it after major revisions.

The manuscript is written as a technical report and need restructuring.

Line 32, generating pores and micro cracks

Fig 1 should have a short explanation about the process and better visual definition of each steps. The Fig should be in session Materials and Methods. Full description of fig caption required. Step 1 is not clear in fig.1. suggest to define each step as a, b, c…with mechanism in manuscript text in session 2.

56; define GO and MSNs abbreviation in session 2

82, CS?

84, 87, 91 0.5 h, two h keep the style consistent in whole manuscript

110, EP?

148, why the mass loss for CS/PMAA-MSNs@GO looks totally different from GO and TA and behaviour of mass loss is not the same, need to define the mechanism of mass loss with more references

Fig 3. Impedance of EP, GO looks the same however for coated version of CS/PMAA-MSNs@GO/EP 48h is different, should be explained. The impedance data should fit to the proper circuit and represent the variable of the fitting for the coating including errors from the impedance model.

What was the impedance amplitude?

The results and discussion is too short and missing scientific input

Fig S1 define pH for each graph

Table S1 CS/PMAA-MSNs@GO shows a very small pore volume, what is the reason?

Fig S7, friction coefficient measures by what method or standard?

Fig S9 humidity, temperature and what standard?

Fig S10 result of polarization curve and impedance should combined together to explain the effect of coating on protection of metals

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, a novel "graphene oxide/functional mesoporous silica nanoparticles" nanostructure was devised as a filler for smart anti-corrosive epoxy coating. UV spectrophotometry confirms the inhibitors' stable encapsulation and regulated release. In the corrosion prevention procedure, the FT-IR mapping test demonstrated the development of ferric tannate in the mechanically damaged area of the coating.

The general organization, goal, methodology, and documentation clarity, comprehensiveness, and novelty of the references are all good. Furthermore, the originality, inventiveness, and scientific worth of the content are clearly shown, however there is a lack of depth of discussion, integrity of conclusions, and applicability of the results.

Therefore, I strongly propose that this work be accepted for publication, with the following caveats:

1.      The abstract section must define the study's main purpose as well as potential applications and uses. Furthermore, the abstract should be precise and highlight the most important findings. As a result, in order to answer these concerns, the abstract must be modified.

2.      It is required to elaborate and explain the value of using mesoporous silica nanoparticles for controlled 3 release of corrosion inhibitors in full depth in the results section.

3.      In accordance with the abstract and introduction, the conclusions should be linked to the major purpose of the study.

4.      It is required to clarify and add some direct applications to this study as well as the recommendations derived from the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The modified version has an improvement in quality and scientific content. 

there is some minor mistakes and need a minor revision.

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It looks like the authors did not quite catch what I meant by abbreviating Nanoparticles to NPs and instead the removed the word Nanoparticles.

There are still many typos and not-proper choice of words. For instance: intelligent in the abstract.

They copied and pasted the title to Fig. 1 caption and did not fix ox-ide.

TGA still does not make sense. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf