Influence of Process Parameters on the Electrodeposition of Vanadium in NaCl-KCl-NaF-V2O3 Molten Salt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work, the authors have investigated the effect of various parameters including the composition of the used molten salt, the temperature, the time and the current density on the thickness and morphology of the electrodeposited vanadium layers. The presented study is interesting however, the following points must be addressed by the authors before the manuscript can be considered for publication:
· The title of the manuscript should be modified to be more accurate
· The abstract of the manuscript should be improved
· The introduction must be enhanced by considering previous reports on electrodeposited vanadium layers.
· The reduction mechanism of V2O3 should be explained in the manuscript.
· The authors have used pre-electrolysis to remove impurities and to obtain a high purity vanadium. However, they did not investigate/discuss the purity of the prepared layers in the manuscript.
· In the caption of fig 5, indicate the used current waveform (bidirectional pulse/DC)
· In page 8 line 141, correct the current density value to 200 instead of 250 “when current density is greater than 200 mA/cm2”
· A cross-sectional SEM image for the layer with the optimum preparation conditions should be added.
· Different values are reported in the manuscript for the thickness/diffusion depth of the sample #1 (prepared using 0.2 NaF, bidirectional pulse, 700 C, 200 mA/cm2 and 10 minutes). The reported values are 1.18 um in fig 2, 1.43 um in fig 5, 1.41 um in fig 8 and 1.41 um in fig 10. The authors must explain/justify the variation in the reported thickness value. They also need to review the conclusion they obtained from the mentioned figures as well as the conclusion part at the end of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Ying Tian et al. has shown the successful electrodeposition of vanadium with the current waveform of bidirectional pulse from NaCl-KCl-NaF-V2O3 molten salt, using graphite as anode and carbon plate as cathode. The authors conducted works as function of parameters such as X, temperature, current density etc. In my opinion the authors should do the following revision before the manuscript is accepted for publication:
1. It is necessary to include error bar in the figures that show the dependency of diffusion depth as a function of various parameters, Figures 2, 5,8 and 10.
2. In the results and discussion section, in numerous places the author just explained the results depicted in the figures. The author should correlate the results with the various parameters used and the chemistry of the materials.
3. In the conclusion part the authors summarize the results obtained. The authors should also clearly explain the advantage of the method developed compared to the previous method and future direction of the work.
4. In the manuscript, the arrangement of the different section should be modified. For example, instead of arranging the different section as 3.1. followed by 1) it is better to label section 1) under 3.1. as 3.1.1.
5. The authors should put the different section of a single figure in one page rather than two pages. For example, instead of putting Figure 7 in two pages, the figure should be depicted in one page.
6. Through improvement of the English language of the manuscript should done before it is published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed most of the comment of this reviewer. However, the authors are suggested to make the following corrections to improve the manuscript:
- Although the authors mentioned that they have improved the abstract of the manuscript, I cannot see any difference between the previous and the current versions of the manuscript. The abstract must be improved to attract readers.
- Correct the temperature values in page 14-15 (from 700 oC to 973 oK)
- The authors should review the language of the manuscript to correct typos and grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I still recommend the authors to include error bar in the figures showing the dependency of the diffusion depth on X. Some improvement in the english language is still recommended before the article is published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
