Comparative Study of Corrosion Properties of Different Graphene Nanoplate/Epoxy Composite Coatings for Enhanced Surface Barrier Protection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's critical comments and evaluation. 

1. We apologize for not making a reference to the Chinese standard of Q235B Steel. A reference is now made to the Chinese standard and an equivalent European standard is provided in section 2.2 of the revised manuscript (Page 2.line 89).
2. Thanks for the reviewer's meaningful question. To achieve a uniform application of the coatings, good brushing techniques and a flat level surface were employed. Also, the paint was applied liberally and spray uniformly, followed by a criss-crossing action with the brush. This ensured that, the coating layer is of uniform thickness throughout and was confirmed with the thickness meter. This detailed discussion has been added in the experimental section 2.2 of the revised manuscript (Page 3, line 106-108)
3. We are thankful to the reviewer for highlighting such a critical error. The number of experimental replicates has ben clearly indicated in the pull-off adhesion test results in section 3.2.1 of the revised manuscript ( Page 6, line 198-199).
4. The Authors will like to acknowledge the reviewer for his/her english language evaluation. A thorough proof-reading was done as requested. Few grammatical and typographical errors were corrected throughout the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with the preparation of Gnps/epoxy composite coatings by incorporating three commercial graphene nanoparticles (C750, M15,X50 Gnps) into epoxy resin. The morphological impact of the Gnps on the surface barrier protection were evaluated in terms of coating’s adhesion to the substate, hydrophobicity and water uptake performance. The introduction is clear and concise.  The background and hypothesis are clearly stated. The experimental section is adequate. In the Results section, Nyquist diagrams should be added to the EIS data. In my opinion, the term “corrosion properties” is more appropriate than “anti-corrosion properties” and should be corrected throughout the manuscript. The conclusions are supported by the data. Therefore, I recommend the publication of the manuscript in Coatings after minor revision.

Author Response

We appreciate reviewers useful comments that has helped to improve the quality of our paper.

1. Authors agree to the reviewer that Nyquist diagrams should be added to the EIS data for better results description. For detailed understanding, equivalent Nyquist diagrams has been added in the revised manuscript. (Section 3.3.3, Page 13, line 320).
2. We thank the review for a careful review of the term " anti-corrosion properties". As suggested, the term has been replaced with "corrosion properties" throughout the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

A very well written research paper. There are some minor editing errors (eg Line 20 - no comma needed). Interesting methodology and research results. Well-elaborated presentation of research results.  I recommend publishing the article in the present form.

The manuscript submitted for review concerned composite coatings containing three types of graphene nanoparticles. The manuscript describes the influence of these particles on the properties of coatings such as water absorption or corrosion (anti-corrosion) properties. The authors describe the research results and dependencies resulting from the addition of particles to the coating in a very legible and transparent manner and with high scientific accuracy. Authors confirm the positive effect of graphene particles on the increase of corrosion resistance. In my opinion, this study is very interesting for the reader, and its presentation is not in doubt and makes the manuscript very easy to read. The topic of graphene has been widely described in recent years and is still a current and inexhaustible topic, hence the publication on graphene particles is the most desirable in the world of surface engineering. The topic is therefore original and up-to-date in the light of other works published on similar topics in the world's leading scientific journals. The thesis is written in an intelligible language, although it can be submitted to a fluent English speaker or a native speaker. I have no substantive comments to the manuscript submitted for review. I would like to emphasize the good quality of the presented research results (diagrams, charts, macro images). It is very good that the authors presented the results of impedance (Bode plots) and that they refer to the research of other authors when describing the research.

There are some things that need to be corrected that do not affect the content.

- typos

- captions under Fig. 9 and Fig. 11. There are no references to individual points (a), (b) ... etc.

I recommend publishing the manuscript, but after removing the errors mentioned above.

Author Response

Authors are thankful to the reviewer for the nice comment and for pointing out the " comma" typographical error. In the revised manuscript, the comma in line 20 has been removed as requested( Page 1, line 20).