Effects of Rare Earth Elements on Microstructure and Corrosion Resistance of Low Alloy Steel Based on Ultra-Thin Cast Strip Process
, Long Chen 1, Tengshi Liu 1,2, Qingxiao Feng 3, Hualong Li 3, Yixin Shi 4 and Han Dong 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comment.
1. Fig. 3 needs an explanation. It is not clear what the pictures with the designation of chemical elements mean.
2. It would be appropriate to emphasize which alloy provides the best set of properties and is promising for future use.
Author Response
Comment 1: Fig. 3 needs an explanation. It is not clear what the pictures with the designation of chemical elements mean.
Answer 1: Thank you for your suggestion. The explanation has been added in the part of 3.2 inclusion and marked in red.
Comment 2: It would be appropriate to emphasize which alloy provides the best set of properties and is promising for future use.
Answer 2: Thank you for your advice. UCS-Q235BRE(R) steel provided the best set of corrosion properties and was promising for future use, which has been added in this paper and marked in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
We have studied the valuable comments from you carefully and we tried our best to revise this manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewers’ comments are listed as following:
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: The mail address should be used as the institute’s mail address.
Answer 1: The author’s mail address has changed to the institute’s mail address.
Comment 2:CASTRIP or POSTRIP etc. may be the trade products. If so, add the symbol of ®.
Answer 2: CASTRIP or POSTRIP etc. are the trade products, and we have added the symbol of ® and marked in red.
Comment 3:The instruments used needs the information as like Model, Manufacturer, Country.
Answer 3: Thank you for your suggestions. More detailed information has been added in this paper and marked in red.
Comment 4: Test solution was deaerated or not? Please describe it.
Answer 4: The test solution has been deaerated by nitrogen treatment before the experiment began.
Comment 5: Linear polarization test;Why did you try Tafel test? Because test solution was aggressive for low alloy steel. Test temperature?
Answer 5: Because the carbon content (about 0.02%) in UCS-Q235 steel was far lower than that (about 0.15%) of ordinary low carbon steel, choosing Tafel test was to prove that UCS steel had higher corrosion resistance than ordinary low carbon steel, even in high corrosive environment. Test temperature was 20℃.
Comment 6: Figure 2; How did you know pearlite in this figure? Because it was very very small.
Answer 6: Previous studies have shown that UCS steel does contain small amounts of pearlite. Although the amount of pearlite is relatively small, it can be identified by the software ImagePro.
Comment 7: Table 3; Corrosion rate shall be shown in mm/y etc. NOT weight-related unit.
Answer 7: According to ASTM G1-2003 “Standard Practice for Preparing , Cleaning and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens”, the average corrosion rate may then be obtained as follows: Corrosion Rate=(K×W)(A×T×D), where: K = a constant, T = time of exposure in hours, A = area in cm2 , W = mass loss in grams, and D = density in g/cm3. Corrosion rate can be choosing as a weight-related unit.
Comment 8: Figure 4 is not clear and be changed. In this manuscript, wet-dry test meant you used 1 specimen and after 24h, the specimen was dried and descaled and calculated the weight loss and then the same specimen was 24h-immersion test, which was 48h-test specimen? Is that right?
Answer 8: Figure 4 has been changed into a clear one. Actually, we did this wet-dry test as followings: Firstly, we set four time points of test (24 h, 48 h, 72 h and 120 h). 3 parallel specimens were set up at each time point and all 12 samples were put in the machine at the same time. Once approaching a time point, 3 parallel samples were dried, cleaned and weighed to calculate the weight loss data.
Comment 9: Figure 5; log i, A/cm2 , E, V(SCE). Denote the specimen to the each curve (Because of black and white printing). Figure/s title contains the information about test conditions.
Answer 9: Thank you for your advice. Each curve has been marked in a different line and the information has been added into title.
Comment 10: Table 4; E, mV(SCE). Test temperature? Figure 6; The number of data of Nyquist and Bode plots was different. Why?
Answer 10: The test temperature was determined at 20℃. It is a mistake that Bode plot did not correspond to Nyquist plot one to one. We were sorry to make this mistake and have corrected it in this paper.
Comment 11: Even though the abbreviation, I recommend the full name of USC, PF, BG, BF, P etc. in conclusions for the reader.
Answer 11: Thank you for your advice. We have used the full name in conclusions.
Comment 12: References shall be revised according to the guideline of this journal.
Answer 12: The references have been revised.
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion, the scientific quality of this paper is good. The figures and tables included in this article are of good quality and require no corrections.
Author Response
Thank you for your sincere comments and kindness. Wish you enjoy your life.
