Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Pengfei Ma 1,
  • Jiaoli Li 1 and
  • Genda Chen 1,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Shayfull Zamree Abd Rahim Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Jinlong Liu Reviewer 4: Sourav Kr. Saha Reviewer 5: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please refer to the comment attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf


Author Response

Dr. review,

Thanks for your suggestions. You comment abslutely helps improve the quanlity of the manuscript. As there are multiple comments, the author replied comments point by point in the attachmnet.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     The practical implication of the results is not highlighted at the end of the abstract.

2.     Please include the full definition of RGB, NIR, UV, SWIR, etc.

3.     The GPS location is not included for the bridge location in line#101.

4.     Please provide the schematic diagram in Figure 3 to explain the experimental setup better.

5.     What are the criteria for selecting the SOI in this study? Please briefly explain in section 2.

6.     How many SOI points for each assessment? What are the sample sizes in the assessment?

7.     Did the authors use or refer to any coating detection and assessment standards? If yes, please also provide it in section 2.

8.     Non-superscript of mm2 in line#148 & #190.

 

9.     Please revise the sentence in line#316: ‘The study presents a study…’

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions. You comment abslutely helps improve the quanlity of the manuscript. As there are multiple comments, the author replied comments point by point in the attachmnet.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article proposes a hyperspectral imaging method based on the response characteristics of coatings in reflection spectra to detect the state of steel coatings. The authors are advised to consider the following suggestions to further improve the paper quality.

1)               When discussing corrosion issues, it is recommended to provide more data and research to further illustrate the serious impact of corrosion on steel components. Some real-life cases can be provided, such as partial collapse or damage of steel bridges.

2)               When describing coatings, it is possible to further explain the chemical composition and properties of different types of coatings, such as the corrosion inhibition effect of calcium sulfonate colored alkyd coatings and their bonding with epoxy primers. This can better explain why this coating is designed as a substitute.

3)               When discussing the results of hyperspectral imaging, it can be explained in detail how hyperspectral imaging technology detects defects in coatings, and what are its advantages and limitations compared to other technologies such as electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). This can help readers better understand the applications and limitations of hyperspectral imaging technology.

4)               When describing steel beams, it is recommended to provide more detailed information, such as the chemical composition and structural characteristics of the steel, as well as the size and shape of the steel beams. This information is crucial for understanding the corrosion, wear, and other conditions that steel beams are subjected to.

5)               When describing scratches, it is recommended to provide more information, such as the width, length, shape, etc. of the scratches, which can help readers better understand the situation of the scratches. At the same time, it is recommended to provide more data to support the observed changes in scratch depth, and to analyze and explain these data.

6)               When describing the distribution of SDI values, it is recommended to provide more information, such as the distribution and range of SDI values, and analyze and explain these data to help readers better understand the evaluation methods of coating status.

7)               Provide a detailed description of the tools, equipment, and methods used in the text, so that readers can repeat the experiment. For example, you can provide more detailed information about the Headwall dual len hyperspectral camera, such as spectral range, Spectral resolution, spatial resolution and other parameters, and explain how to use this equipment to detect coating defects.

8)               When comparing the element content of coatings with rust spots and coatings without rust, it is recommended to use statistical methods to prove whether the difference between the two is significant, which helps to enhance the credibility of the results.

It is recommended to modify the sentences in this article to make readers read more smoothly.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions. You comment abslutely helps improve the quanlity of the manuscript. As there are multiple comments, the author replied comments point by point in the attachmnet. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The present manuscript reports the “Coating condition detection and assessment on the steel girder of a bridge through hyperspectral imaging”. The results are in line with the information already available in the literature. Authors should clearly explain the motive of this research and new findings obtained in line with corrosion inhibition. It is not clear. Therefore, it is not suitable in its present form.

Moderate editing of English language is required. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your suggestions. This manuscript is truely not tackling the corrosion inhibition issues directly. It aims to detect the coating defects on the steel girder and gives a strong and reliable indication of the coating condition, especially for the coating defects that can expose the substrate steel. If those defects can be identified in time, the corroison on substrate steel can be prohibited from the inability of the coating protection. The author checked the all the topics in category and this forum shoule be the most inclusive one for the author's manuacript. That is why the author shoots it here at this forum.

Best，

Authors

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper presents a hyperspectral imaging method for detecting the degradation of steel coatings on the case study of a bridge. The qualitative inspection is based on coating-responsive features in reflectance spectra.

The paper is organized in a logical manner and fits the journal topics.

The state of art covers the main results in the field, including the authors’ own results (references 8, 40). The paper contributions from the introduction section should be also highlighted versus the authors’ previous results.

The 2nd section should include the presentation of the method in the general case.

The authors should eliminate the paragraphs belonging to the template (lines 202, 344-353).

 

Author Response

Dr. reviewer,

Thanks for your suggestions and comments. You comments absolutely helps improve the manuscript. The response is organized point by point as following.

1. The state of art covers the main results in the field, including the author's own results (reference 8, 40). The papaer contribitions from the introduction section should also be highlighted versus the authors previous results.

Response: Thanks for methoning that. Those two references also present the application of hyperspepctral imaging in civil engineering. However, they are directly related to the current topic, steel girder coating defects detection.  Therefore, not too much contributions from those referencesa dn not highlighted in the Introduction. But, thoese references provide some spectral information that overlap with the current study and thus they are still included in this manuacript. For example, the spectral feataure in terms of water presence around 950 nm ect,. 

2. The 2nd section should include the presentation of the method in generally case.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. A generaly work flow fo the data collection in field is presented in Figure 3b in the resubmitted manuscript.

 

3. the author should eliminate the the paragraph belonging to the template (line 202, 344-353).

Response: Thanks for yout suggestion. Line 202 is deleted in the resubmitted manuscript. Line 344-353 (Line 349-359 in the resubmitted manuscript) is updated to cover the authors's information now. Thus, not deleted but updated.

 

Best,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors on their progress with the manuscript. Although many improvements have been made, there are still a few minor comments that need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publishing. Please refer to the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for the suggestions. All comments were resolved.

Here are the detailed revision:

  1. page 1, Line 11: Please change ‘The traditional coating…’ to ‘The conventional coating'.                                                                        Response: It has been revised accordingly in the manuscript. 
  2. Page 3, Figure 1a: Please improve the quality of figure. Please make it clear. Please remove unnecessary information. Please use standard size and font type for all wordings and values at all figure. Suggest to use Palatino Linotype (type font), text size 9. Please check the whole manuscript and do correction accordingly                                                                                    Repsonse: THis figure has been recreated into vector form and replaced the original one.
  3. Page 11, Line 326: Please change ‘The paper presents…’ to ‘The manuscript presents…                                                                                                        Response: it has been corrected in the manuscript.
  4. Pages 11-12, Lines 329-341: Please change numbering 1., 2., and 3. to i., ii., and iii                                                                                                               Response: It has been modified in the manuscript. 

All the changes can be detected in the tracking in the resubmitted version. 

 

Best,

Authors