Influence of Microdefect Size on Corrosion Behavior of Epoxy-Coated Rebar for Application in Seawater-Mixed Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled: Influence of Microdefect Size on Corrosion Behavior of Epoxy-Coated Rebar in Seawater Mixed Concrete is well structured and well written.
-I think that the title is inappropriate since the study was not carried-out by investigating the corrosion of epoxy-coated rebar in a real seawater concrete which is characterized by a specific composition with hydrated silicates, aluminates, portlandite, etc. For this reason the topic of the paper is wrong and the title can be corrected for example as follows: Influence of Microdefect Size on Corrosion Behavior of Epoxy-Coated Rebar for application in Seawater Mixed Concrete.
-Moreover, it is not clear the novelty of this approach and a comparison with similar studies in literature need to be reported.
-Error bars must be reported in all the figures.
-The captions of the tables are totally wrong and must be rewritten
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Influence of Microdefect Size on Corrosion Behavior of Epoxy-Coated Rebar for Application in Seawater Mixed Concrete”. Manuscript ID: coatings-1143891. We have studied comments carefully and made corrections in the manuscripts which we hope meet with approval. The details is shown in the attachment. Thank you!
Wish you have a nice day.
Li Wan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript reports on influence of microdefect size on corrosion behavior of epoxy coated rebar in seawater mixed concrete. Authors need to improve introduction and discussion parts before acceptance. Thus, I recommend a major revision.
Specific comments referring to parts of the paper, line numbers, tables or figures.
- Abstract should be rewritten. Results should be summarized better.
- In entire introduction there is not sufficient number of references used, especially related to the current topic. For example, discussion on coating defects exhibit zero references.
- Idea of the current work is questionable because authors claim to “provide some practical references for the defect detection and reparation of epoxy coatings”, but in conclusion and discussion it is not covered. Furthermore, samples without defects were not taken into consideration (except in Fig. 3b).
- In Ref. 9 authors already performed similar research. Please specify difference between both works.
- Please specify designation of steel used in this work.
- Please add information about manufacture of equipment (including city, country) to entire second part of the manuscript.
- Please specify the design of experiment used in this work better in second part of the manuscript. In results and discussion part some results are presented after 2 or 24h. Afterwards SEM is presented in case of USPS after 84 days and 63 days (CSPS).
- Please change description of table 2.
- Please specify why in Fig. 3b at initial stage there is a potential decrease. In case of CSPS potential of samples with 200µm defects is significantly higher than with 100 µm over the entire time. Please explain it.
- XPS results are given only after 24h, but it is interesting to understand change of corrosion products over time.
- SEM quality presented in Fig. 14 and 16 is insufficient. I recommend to present additionally bigger surface region and quality of Fig. 16 should be improved. In Fig. 16 scale bar is missing. Furthermore, surface of CSPS and cross-section of USPS should be added.
- In Fig. 15 and 17 please add Fe2O3 peaks.
- Authors need to improve English, especially in introduction part. Some sentences were not understandable.
Kind regards,
AVO
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Influence of Microdefect Size on Corrosion Behavior of Epoxy-Coated Rebar for Application in Seawater Mixed Concrete”. Manuscript ID: coatings-1143891. We have studied comments carefully and made corrections in the manuscripts which we hope meet with approval. The details is shown in the attachment. Thank you!
Wish you have a nice day.
Li Wan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors has investigated corrosion behaviors of epoxy-coated rebar with different microdefects immersed in USPS and CSPS. This manuscript show interesting results but sometimes it is difficult to read the manuscript. For example, some sections are not clear enough to the potential readers.
Can the authors show a nice table overview of the obtained results and its description. For example, there are 5 different samples and several parameters. It is very hard to keep the overview as so many data and figures are shown.
It is not clear what the authors mean with “the acidic matter in the environment, such as CO2, will interact with Ca(OH)2 36 and other alkaline substances in the concrete,”
The scale bars are missing in SEM images, please add this. It is not clear what the SEM images want to tell the readers because these images are not described.
In general, this manuscript need to revise/restyle to have a good overview of results. Therefore, this manuscript is not suitable for the publication in MDPI Coatings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Influence of Microdefect Size on Corrosion Behavior of Epoxy-Coated Rebar for Application in Seawater Mixed Concrete” Manuscript ID: coatings-1143891. We have studied comments carefully and made corrections in the manuscripts which we hope meet with approval. The details is shown in the attachment. Thank you!
Wish you have a nice day.
Li Wan
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be now accepted for publication
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you for your review. Wish you have a nice day.
Li Wan
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper could be accepted in presented form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you for your review. Wish you have a nice day.
Li Wan
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have thoroughly adjusted the manuscript based on reviewers comments. It is more readable and clear. However, it is not free of errors.
- Table 2: Please correct chemical formula of Ca(OH) and what is sat. ?
- Line 107: What is 800~50 µm ? Is it a typo ?
- Legends and numbers in Figures are too small to read.
- Suggestion to add a table with samplenames SXXX in experimental section.
As mentioned in previous report, the SEM images should be adjusted/improved to make this more informative or clear to the potential readers. This change was not made/introduce on SEM images itself. Therefore the authors are advised to adjust these SEM images.
- Scale bar is not readable
- Cross sectional is not clear enough, please indicate this on SEM images.
- Inset images on Figure 16 is not clear enough, impossible to read the scale bar
- Please choose another color than black, (a) to (f) are not visible.
How was the cross-sectional SEM images made? cutting the sample?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Influence of Microdefect Size on Corrosion Behavior of Epoxy-Coated Rebar for Application in Seawater Mixed Concrete” Manuscript ID: coatings-1143891. We have studied comments carefully and made corrections in the manuscripts which we hope meet with approval. The details is shown in the attachment. Thank you!
Wish you have a nice day.
Li Wan
