Preparation and Properties of Composite Nanoceramic NiCrBSi-TiO2/WC(Co) Coatings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
1. your manuscript decribes the effect of second phases such as titania and WC-Co to NiCrBSi coatings. The results look interesting and would justify publication, the experimental part is so poorly described that the reader cannot reproduce at all what you have actually done.This is, however, the essence of any scientific publication.
2. The procedure how the two materials were sprayed in combination is no decribed at all.
3. What about the torch kinematics, any cooling etc. It is not mentioned how the samples were prepared afterwards, the exact conditions of the tribotests are also not given.
4. The authors are advised to revise the experimental part radically before resubmission.
Author Response
1. your manuscript decribes the effect of second phases such as titania and WC-Co to NiCrBSi coatings. The results look interesting and would justify publication, the experimental part is so poorly described that the reader cannot reproduce at all what you have actually done. This is, however, the essence of any scientific publication.
The author added the preparation process of coating in the paper and revised the sentences in the paper. The paper’s results show Ni60T had the best densification, the porosity of the Ni60T coating exhibited the best value of 1.3%, and also has a stronger hardness value of 890 HV. The author think the experimental part is so valuably described that the reader.
The specific location is in Fig. 1.
2. The procedure how the two materials were sprayed in combination is no decribed at all.
The coating is prepared by combining the schematic diagram of Figure 1 in the paper with the process parameters in Table 2.
The specific location is in page 2.
3. What about the torch kinematics, any cooling etc. It is not mentioned how the samples were prepared afterwards, the exact conditions of the tribotests are also not given.
The coating is prepared by combining the schematic diagram of Figure 1 in the paper with the process parameters in Table 2.
the exact conditions of the tribotests are also given in 2.2. Test method.
“Using the fretting friction and wear testing machine(SRV-I, Germany), a composite nanoceramic coating sample was prepared in the form of a disk(high:7.8mm,diameter:24mm). Experiments were carried out using GCr15 ball as grinding material, 60N load, friction time of 30 minutes, and two friction conditions, namely, dry friction”.
The specific location is in page 4.
4. The authors are advised to revise the experimental part radically before resubmission.
The experimental part of the paper has been revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
I like your scientific results. The SEM photos are of high quality, the electrochemical corrosion tests are well presented. The XRD spectra are good drawn.
1. English must be improved urgently. Please try to find an English speaker or someone who can write English very well.
2. Please identify the complete and correct names of your technical equipment (XRD diffractometer, SRV tester, hardness tester...)
Complete table 1 with values for all used powders.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
1. English must be improved urgently. Please try to find an English speaker or someone who can write English very well.
The paper invited English polishing agencies to revise and meet the requirements of the paper.
2. Please identify the complete and correct names of your technical equipment (XRD diffractometer, SRV tester, hardness tester...)
XRD diffractometer, SRV tester, hardness tester have been proofread and revised, Seen the following sections:
The phase constituents of the porous samples were determined by X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns exposed by an X-ray diffractometer (model 7000, Rigaku Compact, Japan) with Cu Ka radiation and a Ni filter.
The hardness was measured by an indention method with an HVS-1000 digital display Vickers durometer.
Using the fretting friction and wear testing machine(SRV-I, Germany), a composite nanoceramic coating sample was prepared in the form of a disk(high:7.8mm,diameter:24mm). Experiments were carried out using GCr15 ball as grinding material, 60N load, friction time of 30 minutes, and two friction conditions, namely, dry friction.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The submitted paper deals with coatings based on NiCrBSi. The properties and the performance of coatings with and without the addition of TiO2 nanoparticles and WC ceramic particles are investigated and discussed. Several analytical methods are used for this aim.
First of all, the manuscript requires a careful revision of the English style.
The following are my comments and suggestions:
1. The title should be revised; no reference to the use of TiO2 nanoparticles is done.
2. I would suggest expanding the abstract to better describe the study.
3. Section 3.1: the obtained coatings exhibited different thicknesses, how this parameter can influence the coating’s properties and performance? Could you add a discussion on this result?
4. Line 102: which figure? Specify the number.
5. Line 112: here it is reported that “particles also appeared in the air”. What does it mean? Please, clarify.
6. Figure 2. the text in the images is difficult to read. Try to improve the readability.
7. Label for Figs. 2, 5, and 7: describe more in detail the images (e.g., image taken on the surface, in cross-section, and so on).
8. Lines 197 and 204:Change Fig. 7 with Fig. 8.
9. Lines 198-200: report similar statements also in the introduction, to better explain the aim of the study.
10. Reference 15 is not mentioned in the text.
Author Response
1. The title should be revised; no reference to the use of TiO2 nanoparticles is done.
The title has been revised, “Preparation and Properties of Composite Nanoceramic NiCrBSi-TiO2/WC(Co) Coatings”
2. I would suggest expanding the abstract to better describe the study
The abstract of the paper has been revised.
3. Section 3.1: the obtained coatings exhibited different thicknesses, how this parameter can influence the coating’s properties and performance? Could you add a discussion on this result?
Different coating thickness affects the hardness of the material. It can be seen from Figure 4 in the paper that the change of hardness is consistent with the change of thickness, which is the minimum thickness and the maximum hardness.
4. Line 102: which figure? Specify the number.
The paper has been revised , “It can be seen from the Fig. 3 (b) that the surface is compact”
5. Line 112: here it is reported that “particles also appeared in the air”. What does it mean? Please, clarify.
The paper has been revised The paper has been revised , “It can be seen from the diagram that particles also appeared in pores”
6. Figure 2. the text in the images is difficult to read. Try to improve the readability.
The paper has been revised, Figure 2 is a comparative analysis of the coating thickness and section morphology.
7. Label for Figs. 2, 5, and 7: describe more in detail the images (e.g., image taken on the surface, in cross-section, and so on).
The paper has been revised.
8. Lines 197 and 204:Change Fig. 7 with Fig. 8.
The paper has been revised.
9. Lines 198-200: report similar statements also in the introduction, to better explain the aim of the study.
The paper has been revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the necessary changes have been made, the paper can now be published
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors: Please include an empty line after figure 1. Best regards, Your Reviewer
