On-Line Measurement and Characterization of Electrochemical Corrosion of 304L Stainless Steel Pipe Wall in High-Speed Cl-Containing Solution
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript which can be considered as quite substancial contribution to the field.
Some issues should be corrected:
1) Abstract, line 15. "... is obtained by fitting" - it is not completely clear from the context what was fitted to obtain the corrosion rate values.
2) Line 52. The reference for the Sanchez-Caldera model would be valuable.
3) Section 2.1. More detailed description of the device used for electrochemical measurements is essential. "Data acquisition terminal" in Fig.1 cannot be deemed as sufficient description. Moreover, the accuracy of the electrochemical measurement should be indicated; the values given with 0.01-accuracy seem to be too precise for the typical electrochemical measurements.
4) Section 3.1. Fig. 4 is referred to show the open circuit potential shift to negative values (lines 161-162); however, the figure shows the same potential level with time (apart from the fluctuations) in all cases except the graph for V=11 m/s. The figure should somehow be modified to support the text.
5) Section 3.1. It is not completely clear what is defined by "corrosion potential energy".
6) Section 3.2. Figure 7 shows "cyclic polarization" (line 207) but is captioned as "circulation polarization" (line 230). The terms should be uniform through the manuscript. Moreover, it seems that the figure and the corresponding discussion would better fit Section 3.3.
7) Section 3.3. Figs. 8 and 9. The vertical axis is in current units instead of the current density units, which makes the graphs hardly comparable.
8) Lines 367-369. The corrosion rate calculation procedure (the initial data, involved equations, etc.) should be described.
9) The text should be checked to correct some misprints.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. Modification of the response is detailed in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
please address all comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. Modification of the response is detailed in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, I learned that conditions like fluid flow velocity and concentration of Cl ion influence the corrosion performance of 304L stainless steel significantly. There is a maximum flow velocity that affects the corrosion rate. The authors used different electrochemical techniques to explain the mechanisms controlling the corrosion performance of 304L stainless steel under these conditions. The study is well organized and very detailed. However, I was hoping to see some microstructural evidence showing the damage occurring on the samples under various testing conditions. The absence of these microstructures did not degrade the quality of the scientific information provided in the manuscript. However, I strongly recommend that minor editorial corrections should be made to enhance the readability of the paper.
1. Page 1, lines 15-17 under the abstract is confusing, please revise.
2. Page 2, line 95, I would recommend using "To" instead of "In order to"
3. Page 2, lines 99-101, please revise.
4. Page 5, lines 170-172, delete repeated sentence., Line 171, delete "he"
5. Page 5, line 183, do you mean velocities or concentration?
6. Page 7, line 217, change "repassivation" to "repassivate".
7. Page 11, Fig. 11a reads 1wt % should it not be 4 wt%. Please revise accordingly to avoid confusion.
8. Page 11, please revise Fig. 12.
9. Page 12, line 346, change "showed" to "shown".
I recommend that the manuscript be accepted once the minor corrections have been effected.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. Modification of the response is detailed in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors addressed the comments and paper can be published.
