Diffusion between Ti6Al4V and Cemented Carbide with Different Compositions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is devoted to the study of the diffusion of elements between samples of cemented carbide of various compositions and Ti6Al4V. The diffusion of elements was analyzed using the thermodynamic theory of dissolution and after a real experiment by the EDS analysis method. The authors also conducted an milling experiment  and conducted an analysis that showed the presence of diffusion. The research topic is relevant for the processing of titanium alloys. The manuscript is well written and contains important scientific results that will be useful to researchers in the field.

I have the following comments on the manuscript:

1. Line 176. «…the surface finish Ra value reached 0.05 μm.» How did the authors measure surface roughness? The methodology does not contain a description of this measurement.

2. Table 4. Authors must decipher brands of materials up to table 4. This will improve the readability of the manuscript.

3. Figure 5. (b) «Diffusion curves for the C0406 and the Ti6Al4V». I think it is rather the dependence of the concentration of elements on the distance.

4. Line 254. “…is shown in 0(c)…”. Please correct the numbers of figures throughout the text of the manuscript.

5. Influence of WC grain size on diffusion. How was the grain size measured? The methodology does not contain this information. Moreover, Table 6 does not contain a confidence interval for the measured values of grain sizes and hardness.

6. Figures 5-11. It is necessary to specify confidence intervals for the concentrations of the elements presented in the graphs.

7. Line 388. Table 9. The tungsten content is 0.07 wt%. In this case, the accuracy of the EDS analysis is usually no less than 0.1%. How can the authors identify the presence of tungsten in this case? What is the minimum content of an element that can be determined by EDS analysis?

8. References and Introduction. The reference list is poor. I think a lot of research has been published on this topic in recent years.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Major points in the article which need clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites, and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.

1.      Introduction. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested.

2.      Materials and Methods. They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. The methods are not adequately described in the article. There is no information about the equipment (models). The methodology section school be included to the article.

3.      What were the compositions that were investigated in the work? In the text only the brand names are mentioned.

4.      Table 5. How did you measure the properties of the Ti6Al4V alloy?

5.      How did the density of the samples were measured? Specify the measurement error.

6.      What was the error in measuring the chemical composition of the samples? The error needs to be added and be drawn in the figures 5-8, 10, 11 and to the table 9.

7.      The article needs to provide a substantial amount of new information. The conclusions are common. What new information was received that was not received before?

Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing references, typos, and other inconsistencies.

1.      All Figures, Schemes and Tables should be inserted into the main text close to their first citation and must be numbered following their number of appearance (Figure 1, Scheme I, Figure 2, Scheme II, Table 1, etc.).

2.      The references need to be corrected using the style of the Journal Metals instruction: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/metals/instructions. Also, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged.

3.      Line 45 – theory

4.      Line 140. What is 16?

5.      Line 155. Figure 1 is not mentioned in the text. Add [] to quote the figure.

6.      Check the lines 209, 210, 222, 224, 225, 243, 244, 251, 269, 270, 273 etc. and all the article where you cited the figures, tables or references.

 

General conclusion. The article can be accepted after major revisions. The article needs to provide a substantial amount of new information. The conclusions are common.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised and improved the manuscript. I have a small comment on the manuscript:

References in the text to figures and tables are numbered 0. The numbers of figures and tables must be correct.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I am very sorry, I double checked and revised the full text. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for your comments!

Minor points in the article which need clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites, and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the paper.

1.      The error of EDS analysis needs to be added to Table 9. For example, C 4.87±0.01

2.      Please again check the references. They need to be corrected using the style of the Journal Metals instruction: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/metals/instructions. The year needs to be in bold. Also, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged.

General conclusion. The article can be accepted after minor revisions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Your proposal is very useful for this article. I have revised it according to your suggestion. Thank you for your suggestion!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf