Addressing Hydrogen Sulfide Corrosion in Oil and Gas Industries: A Sustainable Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRegarding the work “Addressing Hydrogen Sulfide Corrosion in Oil and Gas Industries: A Sustainable Perspective”
• It is necessary to correct figure 1. b) it says “Internal Corroion”; Meanwhile, figure 7 is not clearly visible.
• Discussion is missing.
• The conclusions should be improved, for example on line 677 it says “gas industry necessitates a proactive and multidisciplinary approach.” It must be specified.
• It is necessary to update the bibliography, because the current bibliography is less than 50 percent.
• The summary must be improved, and must contain more tangible data on the results obtained.
• A deeper vision must be offered, which addresses, reviews and analyzes the causes and effects of what is proposed.
• Regarding the objective of the work, it should be highlighted; as well as the working hypothesis. On the other hand, emphasis must be given to work innovation, and its specific contribution, in addition, the methodology section must be improved and made clear.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
(Manuscript ID: sustainability-2860550)
The comments of the editor and reviewer are very much appreciated and helped improve the manuscript significantly. We responded to all the comments and made all of the requested changes (highlighted with red color) in the revised manuscript. In the following section, we explained in detail how we responded to each of the comments.
Reviewer comments:
Reviewer #1:
The authors are thankful to the Reviewer for taking the time to assess the manuscript. They value the positive feedback and helpful suggestions provided, which have greatly enhanced the quality of the work. The authors have carefully applied the recommended changes, ensuring that all comments have been considered and included in the updated manuscript.
- It is necessary to correct figure 1. b) it says “Internal Corroion”; Meanwhile, figure 7 is not clearly visible.
- Discussion is missing.
Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback. We have revised Figure 1b to correct the error stating "Internal Corrosion," and we have addressed the visibility issue with Figure 7. Additionally, we have incorporated more discussion regarding Figure 7 in the manuscript.
- The conclusions should be improved, for example on line 677 it says “gas industry necessitates a proactive and multidisciplinary approach.” It must be specified.
Response: Thank you for pointing out these areas for improvement. We have revised the conclusion accordingly.
- It is necessary to update the bibliography, because the current bibliography is less than 50 percent.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised and updated the bibliography and added new references to the manuscript.
- The summary must be improved, and must contain more tangible data on the results obtained.
- A deeper vision must be offered, which addresses, reviews and analyzes the causes and effects of what is proposed.
- Regarding the objective of the work, it should be highlighted; as well as the working hypothesis. On the other hand, emphasis must be given to work innovation, and its specific contribution, in addition, the methodology section must be improved and made clear.
Response: Thank you for emphasizing these points. We have carefully reviewed and incorporated additional discussion and references into the manuscript where necessary to enhance its quality. We have expanded the summary to include more tangible data on the results obtained. Furthermore, we have provided a deeper analysis of the causes and effects of the proposed approach. In terms of the work's objective, we have highlighted it along with the working hypothesis. Additionally, we have underscored the innovation of the work and its specific contribution.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is logically clear overall, but during the review process it was found that some of the mechanisms were not articulated clearly enough.
1. In line 62, the author should elaborate on how these key variables affect corrosion.
2. Authors should clearly articulate the advantages of coating technologies, new materials, electrochemical processes and emerging technologies.
3. In line 115, it is mentioned that" more complex sulfides can also be present". More complex sulphides should also be elaborated.
4. In line 143, the author should elaborate on the various other sources of H2S coming from within the refinery facility.
5. In addition to listing the major products formed in the H2S corrosion of carbon steel and their percentage, the authors also need to detail the reasons for the formation of the major corrosion products.
6. What is the renewed corrosion referred to in line 299?
7. In line 410, the author should tabulate the preheating conditions for the base metal.
8. In addition to the H2S corrosion-resistant materials described in the manuscript. Are the authors aware of the following materials (DOI: 10.1016/j.gee.2022.01.005; 10.1007/s12274-024-6423-x)？
9. The language of the manuscript needs to be polished. In addition, the aesthetics of the tables could be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language is overall good. The language needs further polish, otherwise it's hard to attract readers.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
(Manuscript ID: sustainability-2860550)
The comments of the editor and reviewer are very much appreciated and helped improve the manuscript significantly. We responded to all the comments and made all of the requested changes (highlighted with red color) in the revised manuscript. In the following section, we explained in detail how we responded to each of the comments.
Reviewer comments:
Reviewer #2:
- The manuscript is logically clear overall, but during the review process it was found that some of the mechanisms were not articulated clearly enough.
Response: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Reviewer for dedicating valuable time to evaluate the manuscript. They sincerely appreciate the positive comments and insightful suggestions provided by the reviewer, as they have significantly contributed to improving the quality of the work. The authors have diligently implemented the necessary corrections in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions, ensuring that the comments have been thoughtfully incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.
- In line 62, the author should elaborate on how these key variables affect corrosion.
Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have addressed this concern by adding further discussion in the manuscript about how these key variables affect corrosion.
- Authors should clearly articulate the advantages of coating technologies, new materials, electrochemical processes and emerging technologies.
Response: Thank you to the reviewer for this valuable comment. We have added new discussion to the manuscript addressing these aspects.
- In line 115, it is mentioned that" more complex sulfides can also be present". More complex sulphides should also be elaborated.
Response: Additional elaboration on more complex sulfides has been incorporated into the manuscript in response to your suggestion.
- In line 143, the author should elaborate on the various other sources of H2S coming from within the refinery facility.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this aspect. We have revised the discussion in that section accordingly, and we have included more information about the various other sources of H2S within the refinery facility.
- In addition to listing the major products formed in the H2S corrosion of carbon steel and their percentage, the authors also need to detail the reasons for the formation of the major corrosion products.
Response: Thank you for bringing up this point. We have revised the discussion in this section to include more detailed explanations for the formation of the major corrosion products.
- What is the renewed corrosion referred to in line 299?
Response: Thank you for your comment. The discussion section has been revised to provide clearer explanation regarding the concept of renewed corrosion.
- In line 410, the author should tabulate the preheating conditions for the base metal.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this aspect. We have revised the discussion to provide clearer details regarding the preheating conditions for the base metal as suggested.
In addition to the H2S corrosion-resistant materials described in the manuscript. Are the authors aware of the following materials (DOI: 10.1016/j.gee.2022.01.005; 10.1007/s12274-024-6423-x)?
Response: Thank you for bringing these papers to our attention. We have reviewed the suggested materials referenced by their respective DOIs. However, upon careful examination, it appears that these papers are not directly related to the corrosion or materials resistant to corrosion, as discussed in our manuscript. We appreciate your consideration and input, and we remain focused on the topic at hand, which pertains specifically to H2S corrosion-resistant materials.
- The language of the manuscript needs to be polished. In addition, the aesthetics of the tables could be improved.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have thoroughly revised the language of the manuscript to enhance its clarity and readability. Regarding the tables, we understand your suggestion for improving aesthetics, however, we are constrained by the journal's format requirements. We have ensured that the tables adhere to the prescribed format while making necessary adjustments for clarity.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review paper explores the sources, corrosion mechanisms, and resulting corrosion products of H2S corrosion. It also discusses critical factors influencing H2S corrosion, such as temperature, flow rate, pH, and H2S concentration, and their implications for sustainable practices. The review emphasizes the significance of monitoring and mitigation strategies, including continuous monitoring, corrosion inhibitors, material selection, and data analysis. Furthermore, the paper highlights the role of training in promoting a sustainable approach to H2S corrosion management. Overall, the findings presented in this review contribute to the development of environmentally conscious strategies and practices for long-term viability and resilience in refinery operations. I recommend it be published as it is.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
(Manuscript ID: materials-2584662)
The comments of the editor and reviewer are very much appreciated and helped improve the manuscript significantly. We responded to all the comments and made all of the requested changes (highlighted with red color) in the revised manuscript. In the following section, we explained in detail how we responded to each of the comments.
Reviewer comments:
Reviewer #3:
The review paper explores the sources, corrosion mechanisms, and resulting corrosion products of H2S corrosion. It also discusses critical factors influencing H2S corrosion, such as temperature, flow rate, pH, and H2S concentration, and their implications for sustainable practices. The review emphasizes the significance of monitoring and mitigation strategies, including continuous monitoring, corrosion inhibitors, material selection, and data analysis. Furthermore, the paper highlights the role of training in promoting a sustainable approach to H2S corrosion management. Overall, the findings presented in this review contribute to the development of environmentally conscious strategies and practices for long-term viability and resilience in refinery operations. I recommend it be published as it is.
Response: The authors are grateful to the Reviewer for their thorough evaluation of the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the positive feedback provided by the reviewer. Thank you for recognizing the value of our research and for recommending its publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review paper investigates the diverse facets of H2S corrosion, including its sources, corrosion locations, mechanisms, and resultant corrosion products. Elucidating types of H2S corrosion, including Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (HIC), Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC), and Stress-Oriented Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (SOHIC).
THE WHOLE WORK IS INTERESTING.
POINTS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
1. A literature review made by the reviewer by using authors' keywords and Google Scholar revealed about 11.900 published works after 2020. Please, kindly complete literature cited.
2. The finacial aspects regarding possible solutions were not reported.
3. Please, provide evaluation of possible solution for each reported process with emphasis on the robustness of each solution (advantages and disasvantages) versus financial cost
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
(Manuscript ID: sustainability-2860550)
The comments of the editor and reviewer are very much appreciated and helped improve the manuscript significantly. We responded to all the comments and made all of the requested changes (highlighted with red color) in the revised manuscript. In the following section, we explained in detail how we responded to each of the comments.
Reviewer comments:
Reviewer #3:
This review paper investigates the diverse facets of H2S corrosion, including its sources, corrosion locations, mechanisms, and resultant corrosion products. Elucidating types of H2S corrosion, including Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (HIC), Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC), and Stress-Oriented Hydrogen-Induced Cracking (SOHIC).
Response: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Reviewer for dedicating valuable time to evaluate the manuscript. They sincerely appreciate the positive comments and insightful suggestions provided by the reviewer, as they have significantly contributed to improving the quality of the work. The authors have diligently implemented the necessary corrections in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions, ensuring that the comments have been thoughtfully incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.
- A literature review made by the reviewer by using authors' keywords and Google Scholar revealed about 11.900 published works after 2020. Please, kindly complete literature cited.
- The finacial aspects regarding possible solutions were not reported.
- Please, provide evaluation of possible solution for each reported process with emphasis on the robustness of each solution (advantages and disasvantages) versus financial cost.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your recognition of the interesting aspects of our work. Regarding the literature cited, we have supplemented our references with additional relevant studies to enhance the comprehensiveness of our review. While we acknowledge the importance of financial considerations in evaluating possible solutions, we would like to clarify that our paper primarily focuses on investigating the diverse facets of H2S corrosion, rather than providing a cost analysis. We believe these revisions contribute to a more thorough exploration of the topic within the scope of our study.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNice and interesting work!
