Review of Cathodic Protection Technology for Steel Rebars in Concrete Structures in Marine Environments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Changes are highlighted in purple in the text.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment: I am very sorry for the inconvenience caused to your review due to the English writing and I apologize for that. The quality of English is bad; the article must be rewritten.

General response: Thank you for your criticism and reminding. As you suggested, we have asked MDPI professional English service to recheck and improve our grammatical and syntax errors throughout the manuscript, detailed as shown in the revision.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Changes are highlighted in red in the revision.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The work deals with the cathodic protection of reinforced concrete structures in marine environments.

I strongly recommend that the authors proceed with the paper editing, including spell and grammar check of all the text, before proceeding with a more in-depth discussion on the topic under consideration.

Response 1: Thank you for your criticism and suggestions. In response to your suggestions, we have asked MDPI professional English service to double-check and improve our grammatical and syntax problems throughout the manuscript, detailed as shown in the revision.

Comments 2: Try to avoid tautology. For instance, “strong” appears multiple times in the Introduction. Many sentences need to be edited. A few examples are listed below.

“The relatively high surface and shape requirements of steel rebars for electroplating technology.”

“However, there exist some pollution to the environment and impurities will be easily introduced during operation.”

“Structural corrosion design[6]: It is effective, cost-saving, and low environmental pollution.”

„Actually, seawater is an electrolyte, steel rebars in the seawater in addition to the above corrosion factors, more mainly by electrochemical action[7].”

To improve readability, the manuscript requires grammar checking.

Response 2: Acknowledged your careful reading and valuable reminding. Based on your suggestion, we have corrected the misspellings and updated tautology. What’s more, MDPI professional English service are further implemented to language editing and grammar checking, to improve overall readability of the text, detailed as shown in the revision.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Acknowledged your careful reading and valuable reminding. I have benefited greatly from your professional advices and rigorous approach. The corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes are point-to-point responded in the re-submitted files. Changes are highlighted in green in the revision.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Change the title of the paper with using "Review".

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We've changed the title, as shown in the revision.

Comments 2: To explain the possibility of protection of steel at Marine Environment authors should descrive the problem of corrosion of steel. I reccomend to read and describe the corrosion problems with next works:

-10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00646 ;

-10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002677

-10.30657/pea.2017.15.07.

Response 2: Thank you for your criticism and suggestions. We've added the related literatures reviews and comments in Section 1, details as shown in the revision.

For clarity: “There are more problems with rebar corrosion, as argued Blikharskyy et al [3]. On the basis of theoretical research, three mathematical models were used to theoretically calculate the corrosion of hot-rolling reinforced steel bars. The results showed that different models had a high impact on the corrosion distribution of steel rebar, resulting in a large difference between the theoretical analysis and numerical simulation of steel rebar corrosion, which made it impossible to pre-protect against steel rebar corrosion.” and “Meanwhile, Sarraf and Poursaee [4] pointed out that different sizes of mild steel had widely varying corrosion resistance, with the standard size having the worst corrosion resistance. Thicker mild steel had better corrosion resistance.” have been added in the context and references, as shown in the revision.

Comments 3: recommend that writers use simple sentences. They are easier to translate and also easier to understand in English.

Response 3: The suggestion you made was very helpful to us. As you suggested, we have asked MDPI professional English service to reorganize the structures and improve the contexts throughout the manuscript.

Comments 4: It would be interesting to see the graphical or tabular results of the studies. It is possible to summarize all options for protection of steel against marine influences.

Response 4: It is grateful to your instructions. We have added a new Table involving relevant information, the details are shown in the revision.

For clarity:

Here, the CP methods for steel rebar in the marine environment are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Reviews in CP methods for reinforcing steel rebars.

Comments 5: I recommend not to use abbreviations in conclusions.

Response 5: Thank you for your careful reading and reminders. We've substituted the abbreviations with full spelling names.

Responses to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We’re obliged to your kindly reviews on this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Changes are highlighted in Green in the revision.

2. Point-by-point responses to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment:

1. Please ensure that all number references are verified. Some references were added in the revised version, but the numbering has not been updated accordingly.

Response 1: Thanks for your reminding. We've updated the number references accordingly, as shown in the revision.

2. Please replace 'catholic' with 'cathodic' in the document.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We have corrected the errors throughout the manuscript, as demonstrated in the revision.

Responses to Reviewer 1 Comments for applsci-3160175R3

1. Summary

We’re obliged to your kindly reviews on this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the 3^rd revision.

2. Point-by-point responses to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment:

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some minor issues highlighted in the manuscript need to be corrected.

Response 1: Thanks for your careful reading. We've corrected the spelling and reference list errors you have pointed out, furthermore, we have checked up the problems and red-penciled throughout the manuscript accordingly, as shown in the 3^rd revision.