Corrosion Behavior of Heat-Treated Nickel-Aluminum Bronze and Manganese-Aluminum Bronze in Natural Waters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Corrosion behavior of heat-treated nickel-aluminum bronze and manganese-aluminum bronze in natural waters” explores the corrosion behavior of as-received and heat-treated NAB and MAB alloys. The result is intriguing, but the manuscript lacks the substance to support the claimed behavior.

1. In the experimental methodology section, the 850 ℃/1h, quench + 600 ℃/2h, FC are carried out in this work. The author need to explain the reason.
2. As shown in Figs.4-6, the as-received, T1 and T2 treated samples exhibit the different microstructure. However, the quantitative results of area fraction of constituent phases are not provided, which are important for the corrosion behavior.
3. The morphology of α, β and K phases changed apparently heat treatments for the MAB alloy (Fig.4 and 5). I suggest the authors to provide the detailed discussion for the microstructural evolution mechanism.
4. XRD or TEM results should be provided to characterize the constituent phases.
5. Line 215, “the кⅢ phase rich in Ni and Al may be based on NiAl”, However, the EDS results in Table 3 show the enrichment of Cu in this phase.
6. The corrosion behavior of NAB and MAB alloys in SSW is apparently different. The contribution of different phases to corrosion properties should be estimated further to support the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript, entitled „ Corrosion behavior of heat-treated nickel-aluminum bronze and manganese-aluminum bronze in natural waters” is relevant to the scope of this journal. It is an interesting study that can provide interesting information to specialists.

However, some points need to be addressed before publication of this manuscript. My comments/suggestions are given:

1.The way the manuscript is written and formatted does not comply with the requirements of the magazine.

2. The authors must specify what is new about this paper, because this topic appears in many specialized papers.
3. Also, the bibliography presents very few references, given that this topic is discussed in several papers.
4. The authors must explain why they chose to polarize at +50, +150, +250, and +350 mV/SCE) samples in SFW and at -250, -200, -150, or -100 mV/SCE in SSW.
5. The scale of images a-d from Figures 4, 5 and 6 is not visible. The same goes for images a and c from Figure 9 and images a, c, d and f from Figure 10. Please correct.
6. If the potentiostatic corrosion test results of MAB were taken from reference 16, why not at least all the curves recorded for NAB appear. I also mean AR and T2 in SFW and SSW.
7. Figure 8 shows the same values as in Table 5. One of them must be dropped. If no data are obtained by the authors for MAB, it must be specified in the legend of Table 5 / Figure 8.
8. The authors always refer to the open circuit potential (for example the lowest test potential above the open circuit potential), but the value of the open circuit potential is not specified in any of the situations!
9. The conclusions must be written more concisely!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think it can be accepted in this version.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made all the requested corrections. The manuscript has been greatly improved so that it can be published in its current form.