Electrochemical Properties of TiWN/TiWC Multilayer Coatings Deposited by RF-Magnetron Sputtering on AISI 1060

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for sending the paper for publication. In the paper properties of Ti-W-N and Ti-W-C coating deposited on AISI 1060 substrates are investigated. The paper presents only comparative results of testing and does not try to introduce new ideas it is not controversial. During reading, I have found some issues to correct:

1. Line 3: decide if you use RF or r.f. for radiofrequency abbreviation

2.Line 26: scanning electron microscopy

3.Line  92: 60%

4.Line 95: delete "were coated" at the end of the line

5.Line 140: the abbreviation has already been explained

6.Line 163: rephrase the sentence

7.Line 205: corresponding

8.Line 217: [32,33]

9.Line 285: values are in agreement with previously reported

10.Line 287: a comma is not necessary

11.Line 333: delete ", n=1

12.Line 334: is it really 600% or 1600%

13.Line 345: delete (EIS)

14.Lines 348-350: rephrase the sentence

15.Table 4. Value on n1 for n=40 is 0.74

16.Line 386: delete "bilayer"

17.Line 387: atomic force microscope

18.Line  389: de=of

19.Line 391: , and

20.Line 417: remove "of"

21.Line 423 ref [60]

22.Line 442: rephrase the sentence

Best regards

Author Response

Excuse me for the delay; I send you the Review Report, ,and corrected manuscript an attached at the end the report.

Thanks, the best regards!

Andres González Hernandez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors investigated electrochemical properties of the AISI 1060 substrate coated with TiWN and or TiWC multilayer. The authors did a lot of works but the manuscript should be improved for publication. First of all, the manuscript has to be proofread by a native speaker. There are lots of errors grammatically so that it is really hard to understand what the authors want to say. The contents also have to be improved. Selecting the experment such as porosity factor and analyzing results was not appropriate. If porosity of the coating layers would be important, why did you use BET method. The different thickness of the coating layers resulted in the change in the resistance even though the coating layers have the same porosity. That means the direct deduction of the porosity from the resistance would be not correct. In addition, corrosion occurs at OCP condition so the authors have to consider the OCP value when calculating corrosion rate. In Table 3, the calculation on CR seems to be wrong. n=40 bilayer had the high Icorr value but its CR showed the lowest value. Analysis on EIS has to be improved. No discussion on date was given. Rather, the explanation on CPE was too much given and some information on this was not right. 

Author Response

Excuse me for the delay; I send You the Review Report and the corrected manuscript an attached at the end of the report.

Thanks, The best regards!

Andrés González Hernández

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Excuse me for the delay; I send You the Review Report and the corrected manuscript an attached at the end the report.

Thanks, the best regards!

Andrés González Hernández

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered some issues addressed but the improvements are still needed. Especially, the authors have to be careful in analyzing characteristics of the films due to the different thickness. Both polarization resistance and CPE could be influenced by not only posority but film's thickness. Moreover, CPE would increase when more pores present because they contain more ions in an electrolyte. And, as I already mentioned, please analyze the porosity of the films directly through other methods such as BET instead of using polarization resistance. Also, if your explanation on Icorr and OCP, I would recommend you to do an immersion test for weight loss, which will give you more direct information on corrosion rate. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The paper´s Authors appreciate the encouraging, critical, and constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewer. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of the revised manuscript by many folds. Therefore, we have taken them fully into account in revision.

The best regards

Andrés González Hernández

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The issues I addressed are clarified so that the manuscript seems to be ready for publication.