Wear and Corrosion Resistance of CrYN Coating in Artificial Seawater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper Wear and Corrosion Resistance of CrYN Coating in Artificial Seawater by Man Li, Yunjiang Yu, Changwei Zou, Canxin Tian, Zesong Wang, Yanxiong Xiang is well suited for journal Metals. The authors of this article analyzed the results of the present studies on CrYN coatings.

The paper is substantially good and maybe scientifically valuable. The manuscript contains parts in good order: introduction, materials and methods, results, conclusions.

The Abstract is really the summary of the article. The length of the abstract is good. Keywords - no comments. 

The length of the abstract is good, enough to put a lot of information, summarize the article, but not too long for the reader who wants to get information about the content of the article and decide whether to read the whole. Introduction present background of analyzed problem, literature review shows important achievements of earlier articles. 

Subsequent chapters - the article is one of many describing the properties of coatings on steel under the influence of sea water. The composition of the coatings is different, but the tests are identical. The coating selection is new. The discussed topic has been thoroughly analyzed.

In the summary, the authors presented the main achievements of the described study. However, readers would certainly be interested in whether the protection of the presented coating is better or worse than that of coatings from other articles? Of course, the comparison should be based on comparable results reported in other articles.

In the opinion of the reviewer, the authors should add a chapter "Discussion" with a discussion of the results obtained in the context of other articles.

The bibliography refers to 43 articles and other publications including 2 articles in Metals.

The article was written enough well in English, is understandable for a reviewer, a person who does not speak English as a mother tongue. However, the entire text should be carefully checked, below are some examples of mistakes:

- line 24 - instead of “mechanism;artificial seawaterKeywords:” -> should be “mechanism; artificial  seawater”

- line 58 - [28]found - lost space

- line 61 - [29]found -  lost space

- line 95 – instead of “caculated” -> should be “calculated”

- line 147 - 150 -> -150; 200 -> -200

- line 158 - in Fig. 4 drgree-> degree

- line 267 - Figure 9. wear rates  ->  Figure 9. Wear rates

- line 301 - References – without the number

- line 367 - Measurements[M]. -> Measurements.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The novelty of the manuscript is low, and the authors did not explain well the experimental part. The manuscript suffers from a lack of a scientific approach. The discussion part is weak, and the authors tried to relate the results to the columnar structure of the coatings, while there is no picture to confirm it. The microstructure in the cross-section must be shown. There are more comments in the pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: “Wear and Corrosion Resistance of CrYN Coating in Artificial Seawater”

Manuscript Number: metals-2115714

Dear Editor,

        I am attaching my review comments of the manuscript on a paper entitled “Wear and Corrosion Resistance of CrYN Coating in Artificial Seawater”.

.

In this paper, the authors have studied the effect of the grain refinement of the CrYN coating through the addition of the yttrium (Y) using different voltages on the friction and corrosion.  The results indicated that effectiveness of coating under -100 as the best condition in improve the corrosion and friction behavior of the coating layer.. It is exciting research and will contribute effectively to the transportation industry. The reviewer suggests accepting this paper for publication in the metals after a major revision to cover the following comments. 

 

 

1-      Did this manuscript was published before and then removed? Please see the following link and clarify that.

 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4255594

 

2-English needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript, for example, in abstract.

"X-ray diffractometry, scanning electron microscopy were used  to characterize the composition and microstructure of the coatings, and an electrochemical work- station and a ball-on-disk tribometer were used to investigate their corrosion and friction behavior." this statement also so long need, it is like paragraph not statement

 

Moreover, this statement is also so long.

 

 "The results show that grain refinement can be achieved by the addition of yttrium (Y), and that the 16 surfaces of coatings prepared under different bias voltages have varying smoothness and compact-17 ness; Surfaces prepared under -100 V bias voltages is relatively smooth and relatively dense in struc-18 ture, corresponding a Y-content of 2.83 at.% ; CrYN coatings at -100 V have the highest corrosionpotential, and low self-corrosion current, equating to superior corrosion resistance;And the friction 20 coefficients of deposited CrYN coatings under bias voltages of -100 V is less than 0.2" 

 

See "And the friction 20 coefficients" capital letter

 

 

"0.2.Therefore, the 21 coating under bias voltages of -100 V has the minimum wear rate due to its structure, corrosion 22 resistance and friction"

No space

 

Imagine a lot of English language errors in the abstract, so what about the whole manuscript?

The long sentences also see along the work. English needs deep polishing.

 

2-      Authors must provide the following:

• The wear test parameters load.
• Distance.
• The hardness of the wear test ball or indentor.

      Authors must provide more details about the wear test.

 

3-        For all microstructures observations micrographs, please indicate the important observations by arrows.

4-       Authors need to define the different cases, such as CrYN-1  in table 1, related to the V=-50 V; mention that on page 4 is insufficient. To overcome any confusion, an abbreviation must be defined in a table.

5-      See the captions of figures 2 and 3; please correct the voltage sign.

6-      The microstructure observation in figures 2 and 3 need deep discussion and explanation about the difference in coating layer thickness from one case to another.

7-      Please correct the V values in figure 5.

8-      SEM observations of the corroded surfaces must support the high corrosion resistance in CrYN-2.

9-      The claim of authors that seawater play as a lubricant during wear tests needs support from previous works and add references for that.

10-    Authors must provide the SEM photomicrographs of the wear scars and their profile for each case. 

11-  Hardness needs to be measured and related to the wear results.

12-  Confusion continue. If samples named CrYN 1 to 4, why the V values are added in Fig 7 and also values are 50,100,150and 200 or -50.-100,-150and -200. Please correct

13-  Authors in Figure 7 speak about voids, grain bonding, adhered particles, and dimples. However, the microstructure needs to be clarified. Photos with higher magnification are needed.

14-  Please reconstruct the conclusions.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

The authors took into account my comments and added new elements to increase the value of the article. I recommend this article to print.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors tried to modify the manuscript according to the comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to accept  the paper in present form.