Synergistic Effect of Nanoclay and Barium Sulfate Fillers on the Corrosion Resistance of Polyester Powder Coatings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscrict is devoted to the properties of a composite coating made of polyester powder with the addition of nanoclay.

  The manuscrict considers two commercial nanoclay fillers, but the composition of these fillers is not presented.

Despite the good technical level and sufficient research, the work is of limited interest, relevant for the small circle of specialists, because it reproduces composits with known commercial ingredients. The work is not of scientific interest, because does not contain any information about new materials, nor an explaination of the physicochemical processes.

There are a number of inaccuracies:

1. The composition of commercial nanoclays is not disclosed. why were they  chosen?

2. Table 4. it would probably be better to show the compositions of the composites by giving the masses of the components

3. Figure 1 - 2 - it would be important to pay special attention to such a parameter as roughness and bring AFM images of all samples, as well as analyze the data obtained.

4. Figure 3. Both gloss and DOI parameters are practically the same for all samples, except for samples with 6% nanoclays. So how were the measurements taken, were the results averaged?

5. Lines 172-178 can be moved to the methodology.

6. How was the specific resistivity of the samples determined. These data must be averaged.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Synergistic Effect of Nanoclay and Barium Sulfate Fillers on the Corrosion Resistance of Polyester Powder Coatings

 In this manuscript titled “Synergistic Effect of Nanoclay and Barium Sulfate Fillers on the Corrosion Resistance of Polyester Powder Coatings”, the authors have demonstrated the usage of nanoclay with Barium sulfate fillers as anti-corrosive agents of polyester powder coatings. Less amount of nanoclay along with barium sulphate was efficiently proved to reduce the corrosive effect synergistically than with higher amount of nanoclay. The images shown after the neutral salt spray test are clear and appreciable.

 In this submission, there are some issues which need to be addressed by the authors. They are listed below.  

 Major issues

 

1.      The specific objectives of the study need to be stated.

 

2.      Barium sulfate fillers along with clay were already proved to resist corrosion. What is the significance of this study? How does this study differ from those found in literature?

 

3.      How do the authors justify the behaviour of small particle size nanoclay C1 and with the particle size of C2 with respect to dispersion?

 

4.      It seems that the authors have used their previous study for this work. Are the experimental conditions the same for both studies?

 

5.      The authors have mentioned that the incorporation of the filler alone did not enhance the barrier effect of the coating. If so, then what would have contributed to the improvement in the barrier effect of the coating?

 

6.      What may the reason for the significant change in the creepage time between the coatings C1 and C2 for 2% dosage with the filler in the neutral salt spray test? How do the authors infer this?

 

7.      What are the specific outcomes of this study?  

 Minor issues

 

1.      The authors shall expand triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC) in its first appearance i.e on Page 2, Line 52. (Actually it is given in Line 63).

 

2.      Figures 1a and 1b are quite similar.

 

3.      SEM image for C2 -06%-PB is missing. Whether it is intentionally left out? Also, EDS maps of S, coating with C2 -8% is missing.

 

4.      The references are quite older and the authors shall include recent and appropriate ones, if available. How does the study advance the field or reduce the gaps in literature?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the work done and the updated results. All corrections have been made and comments taken into account. The manuscript may be published.

The level of English is sufficient. Some editorial changes are possible.