Corrosion Protection Efficacy of the Electrodeposit of Poly (N-Methyl Pyrrole-Tween20/3-Methylthiophene) Coatings on Carbon Steel in Acid Medium
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper seeks to introduce an approach “Corrosion protection efficacy of the electrodeposited of poly (N-methyl pyrrole-Tween20/3 -methyl thiophene) coatings on carbon steel in acid medium”. However, the authors should consider improving upon the quality to further highlight and emphasis.
1. Based on the understanding on what should constitutes an abstract, consider adding one or two lines introducing the problem you are trying to solve.
2. Change the word “influenza” to “influence” in the abstract. Influenza as you have written is a disease which has no correlation to this particular study.
3. Also, add one or two lines highlighting on the significance of your study at the end of the abstract.
4. The introduction needs to be improved by relating to the mechanics of the studied materials and their mechanical characteristics. The references to be included are: 10.1007/s10853-022-06994-3, 10.3390/polym14132662 and 10.1016/j.jiec.2022.06.023.
5. Again, put a space between each variable and its unit. For instance, instead of 3mA/ cm2, indicate it as 3 mA/cm2. These anomalies run through the whole manuscript. Consider correcting all accordingly.
6. Your choice of words should always give meaning to what you actually want to portray. What do you mean by the word “applique” in the abstract?
7. Separate the word “aggressivesulfate” and “thecomposition”. These two different words which are written as “aggressive sulfate” and “the composition”.
8. Your abstract should also contain by name the Physico-chemical characterizations that were taken in the study. consider including it
9. In the material and method section, tabulate all the materials used with their physical and chemical properties.
10.Provide a schematic diagram showing the summary of the method used in preparing the solution for the electrodeposition.
11.Also, provide a schematic diagram of the electrodeposition process.
12. Take care of the English. Use “to” in place of “for” in the statement “OLC 45 sample was cleaned in benzene for eliminate all traced of grease”.
13. Provide a diagram showing how the standard sellotape test was carried out.
14. We could only know how the electric current could react with the solution in the process of deposition if we know of the zeta potential value of the solution used including the particle size. Did you do these tests? If not, why?
15. What is the shape of the material used as the working electrode for the deposition? Is it cylindrical, sheet, and among others? If it is a sheet how did carry out the corrosion test since one side would be exposed which will affect the outcome of the corrosion test.
16. What was the working range applied in your SEM experiment?
17. One standard of description should be maintained, change the word “scheme 2” to “figure 2” to conform with what you have already indicated under the figure.
18. Introduce the FT-IR in the abstract and also before the results and discussion. Don’t just introduce it to the blind side of the reader.
19. The author a nice work but the whole document needs some English language correction. I suggest, the authors go back, read and correct all the numerous English Language mistakes committed.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Thank you for your comments and corrections. The required revision was done thus:
- Based on the understanding on what should constitutes an abstract, consider adding one or two lines introducing the problem you are trying to solve.
Answer: all the required changes have been made.
- Change the word “influenza” to “influence” in the abstract. Influenza as you have written is a disease which has no correlation to this particular study.
Answer: all the required changes have been made.
- Also, add one or two lines highlighting on the significance of your study at the end of the abstract.
Answer: all the required changes have been made.
- The introduction needs to be improved by relating to the mechanics of the studied materials and their mechanical characteristics. The references to be included are: 10.1007/s10853-022-06994-3, 10.3390/polym14132662 and 10.1016/j.jiec.2022.06.023.
Answer: These references were added in section “Introduction”.
- Again, put a space between each variable and its unit. For instance, instead of 3mA/ cm2, indicate it as 3mA/cm2. These anomalies run through the whole manuscript. Consider correcting all accordingly.
Answer: all the required changes have been made.
- Your choice of words should always give meaning to what you actually want to portray. What do you mean by the word “applique” in the abstract?
Answer: The change has been made.
- Separate the word “aggressivesulfate” and “thecomposition”. These two different words which are written as “aggressive sulfate” and “the composition”.
Answer: The request was done. Actually, this was an error caused by different office versions (same for the 5th request)
- Your abstract should also contain by name the Physico-chemical characterizations that were taken in the study. consider including it
Answer: Our study is about corrosion protection and the measurements were strictly related to this, such as electrochemical characterizations (including Tafel curves and EIS) from which key parameters are extracted (corrosion current and potential, charge transfer resistance etc.) and electronic microscopy. All relevant parameters are considered.
- In the material and method section, tabulate all the materials used with their physical and chemical properties.
Answer: The physical properties of the studied material are found in engineering studies; corrosion resistance is a chemical (electrochemical) property. Physical or mechanical properties (such as OLC45’s tensile strength) are covered in other scientific fields. The corrosion protection can only improve or extend the lifetime of these materials and do not modify any physical property.
- Provide a schematic diagram showing the summary of the method used in preparing the solution for the electrodeposition
Answer: Please consider that all the needed details are thoroughly described in the “Experimental – materials and methods” section. This description is explicit enough for this study to be easily reproduced by any researcher.
- Also, provide a schematic diagram of the electrodeposition process
Answer: A schematic diagram of the electrodeposition process was added.
- Take care of the English. Use “to” in place of “for” in the statement “OLC 45 sample was cleaned in benzene foreliminate all traced of grease”.
Answer: The request was done.
- Provide a diagram showing how the standard sellotape test was carried out.
Answer: A schematic diagram of the “standard sellotape test” was added.
- We could only know how the electric current could react with the solution in the process of deposition if we know of the zeta potential value of the solution used including the particle size. Did you do these tests? If not, why?
Answer: Zeta potential is only important when we deal with a sol or suspension, i.e. charged particles like polymer particles or polyatomic ions (e.g. polyoxometalates). Instead, we work directly by polymerizing the monomer directly onto the substrate surface. Therefore, zeta potential cannot by applied in this case.
- What is the shape of the material used as the working electrode for the deposition? Is it cylindrical, sheet, and among others? If it is a sheet how did carry out the corrosion test since one side would be exposed which will affect the outcome of the corrosion test.
Answer: The electrode is cylindrically shaped – it is described in the “experimental” section.
- What was the working range applied in your SEM experiment?
Answer: The range is 5-10 kV. Also, this parameter is specified (along with magnification and scale) individually into each SEM figure.
- One standard of description should be maintained, change the word “scheme 2” to “figure 2” to conform with what you have already indicated under the figure.
Answer: The request was done.
- Introduce the FT-IR in the abstract and also before the results and discussion. Don’t just introduce it to the blind side of the reader.
Answer: The request was done.
- The author a nice work but the whole document needs some English language correction. I suggest, the authors go back, read and correct all the numerous English Language mistakes committed.
Answer: all the required changes have been made.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors have use the electrochemical techniques to study the corrosion protection efficacy of the poly coating. The authors have found that the corrosion protection capacity of this coating is above than 90%. Although these results are very interesting, it must be again comment after revision.
1).The content of abstract is so much. The abstract should be simplified and well summarized.
2).The authors stated that the corrosion protection capacity of this coating is above than 90%. Why? What the nature of the improvement of corrosion resistance?
3).In introduction, the research background of the coating should be well summarized. For corrosion and oxidation resistance of coating, the authors should be cited these references: Ceram Int. 2022;48:11518-11526. Ceram Int. 2020;46:6698-6702. Vacuum. 2020;172:109067. Mat Sci Eng B-solid. 2020;259:114580. Ceram Int. 2018;44:19583-19589. Mater Res Bull. 2018;107:484-491. Chem Phys Lett. 2018;698:211-217.
4).The authors states that the molar ratio is 5:1 and 3:5. Why?
5).Experimental section, we know that the quality of sample is strongly related to the vacuum degree. So what the degree of vacuum? In particular, the authors how to examine the gas(H and O) effect.
6).In this paper, the authors consider the corrosion resistance of this coating. Can you consider the oxidation resistance?
7).Why not the authors give the XRD to affirm the formation of phase?
8).In addition, the quality of all Figures is poor.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Thank you for your comments and corrections. The required revision was done thus:
1).The content of abstract is so much. The abstract should be simplified and well summarized.
Answer: all the required changes have been made.
2).The authors stated that the corrosion protection capacity of this coating is above than 90%. Why? What the nature of the improvement of corrosion resistance?
Answer: The PNMPY-TW20/P3MT composite coatings were electrodeposited homogeneous, compact, uniform, and adherent on OLC45 sample under the optimum condition .The superior surface coating and greater adsorption action also explained the best corrosion protection efficacy of the composite coatings. The performance of these protective coatings provides a great barrier to the substrate against corrosive agents (medium). Owing to the improved physical barrier result the coating surface is dense, homogeneous, with small porosity and higher protection ability, the PNMPY-TW20/P3MT composite coatings have been more corrosion resistant.
3).In introduction, the research background of the coating should be well summarized. For corrosion and oxidation resistance of coating, the authors should be cited these references: Ceram Int. 2022;48:11518-11526. Ceram Int. 2020;46:6698-6702. Vacuum. 2020;172:109067. Mat SciEng B-solid. 2020;259:114580. Ceram Int. 2018;44:19583-19589. Mater Res Bull. 2018;107:484-491. Chem Phys Lett. 2018;698:211-217.
Answer: These references were added in section “Introduction”.
4).The authors states that the molar ratio is 5:1 and 3:5. Why?
Answer: I used various amounts of monomers to track how it influences the obtaining of composite and to discover what is the ideal amount to be used for obtaining a composite with the best anticorrosive properties. This molar ratio 5:1 and 3:5 of coating has a higher protective performance.
5).Experimental section, we know that the quality of sample is strongly related to the vacuum degree. So what the degree of vacuum? In particular, the authors how to examine the gas(H and O) effect.
Answer: Though this is true, the quality of our samples is industrial grade. Therefore, such a parameter as the “vacuum degree” is not specified by the manufacturer. However, the samples do obey any technical requirements imposed by OLC45 standard.
6). In this paper, the authors consider the corrosion resistance of this coating. Can you consider the oxidation resistance?
Answer: The oxidation resistance is not specifically addressed in this study but we used a very corrosive media, consisting in 0.5 M H2SO4, to test the corrosion resistance of OLC45. Materials that “survive” in such an aggressive media, i.e. H2SO4 is not only a strong acid but it is also an oxidative one, should always show an increased corrosion resistance in other environments that are milder (e.g. sea water).
7).Why not the authors give the XRD to affirm the formation of phase?
Answer: The composite films formed on the surface of the samples are rather non-crystalline. Therefore, an XRD study wouldn’t reveal any useful information regarding our study.
8).In addition, the quality of all Figures is poor.
Answer: All Figures have been qualitatively improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have successfully resolved all issues. The paper can be accepted and published.
