Characterization and Corrosion Behavior of Zinc Coatings for Two Anti-Corrosive Protections: A Detailed Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Alina et al. The purpose of this research is to examine the corrosion behavior of zinc coatings used for corrosion protection, specifically on S235 steel. The study highlights the importance of corrosion protection in industrial settings and the need for effective solutions. This work has significant implications for improving protective systems in industrial applications. I am glad to accept this work after major revisions.
1. Title can be shorten, personally suggestion, 'Characterization and Corrosion Behavior of Zinc Coatings for 2 Anti-Corrosive Protection: A Detailed Study'
2. Introduction: Please rephrase this part, especially for the examples of others' work. It can be emphasized and with powerful and insightful.
3. All microstructure of samples should be with scales. Most ignored. Please check all and correct them.
4. Fig. 4c, avoid the screenshots and make your data visual using data processing software, even MS EXCEL.
5. Fig. 7, the same with Q4.
6. If possible, please summarize all SEM images that appeared in this manuscript, some can be transferred into the SI file.
7. References: update the ref list with the latest version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review deals with the Characterization and Corrosion Behavior of Zinc Coatings for
Anti-Corrosive Protection: A Detailed Study on Corrosion
Product Formation, Performance Evaluation, and Influence of
Deposition Parameters on S235 Steel.
According to the reviewer, the paper is worth publishing at the Coatings Journal,
but some corrections are needed and then the paper can be accepted for publication in the journal.
Additionally make the following corrections to the manuscript:
Comment 1
The authors should check the paper for spelling and typographical errors.
Line 98
Petit [3] performed
The authors should replace
Petit et al. [3] performed
Line 102
Bolzoni [4] emphasized
The authors should replace
Bolzoni et al. [4] emphasized
Line 106
Le and colleagues evaluated
The authors should replace
Le et al. evaluated
Line 110
Morcillo and Daz investigated
The authors should replace
Morcillo et al. investigated
Line 114
Li and Han focused
The authors should replace
Li et al. focused
Line 117
Galedari and colleagues
The authors should replace
Galedari et al.
Line 124
Pokorn investigated galvanized
The authors should replace
Pokorny et al. investigated galvanized
Line 124
Abd El-Lateef and colleagues investigated
The authors should replace
Abd El-Lateef et al. investigated
Line 132
Yan looked on the effect
The authors should replace
Yan et al. looked on the effect
Line 358
duration [21,22,23].
The authors should replace
duration [21 - 23].
Line 760
was less rough (Fig. 29a)
The authors should replace
was less rough (Fig. 29a).
Comment 2
Table 1
The authors should give more details for the Table 1 (authors experiments or sypplier's data).
Comment 3
The authors should explain why they used two times the "(22 mm)".
Comment 4
Table 2
The values from the Table 2 are the mean values of the roughness (deviation?)?
Comment 5
Line 222
A Hitachi SEM was used
The authors should give more details for the using equipment (type, model).
Comment 6
Line 233
The authors should insert a description for a) and b)
and the authors should insert the magnification.
Comment 7
Line 252
d) roughly (5 - 4.5x, Fig. 23) stereoscopic images.
The authors should check if the number of the Figure is right (23?).
Line 305
than 4m, and the computed
The authors should check if the unit is right (m? or μm?).
Line 306
10µm (Figure 3-1.c).
The authors should check if the number of the Figure is right (3-1.c?).
Line 560
Zn (Figure 23a). These primary
The authors should check if the number of the Figure is right (23a? - there is no Figure 23a).
Line 572
Figure 23. Crack in zinc layer between delta
The authors show the oxides (and no cracks) in the Figure
Comment 8
Figure 11
If it possible, the Figure must be accompanied on the same page as the Figure's title.
Comment 9
Line 621
5. Findings and practical implications
The authors should consider if they use the
5. Discussion
Comment 10
References
The authors must format the References according to the journal's instructions
(References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:
Journal Articles:
1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.)
Increase the number of the reference papers including (primarily) from MDPI Journals.
The authors use 0 papers from Coatings journal / 2 MDPI Journals / 44 papers from journals (References).
The number for papers from MDPI journals is considered insufficient (in reviewer's opinion).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version can be published if other reviewers have no more additional comments.
Author Response
Once again, we appreciate your insightful comments, which have helped us to enhance the quality of our manuscript. We hope that the revised version of the paper now meets your expectations and that you will find it suitable for publication.
Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Best regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment 1
Lines 2-3
Characterization and Corrosion Behavior of Zinc Coatings for 2
Anti-Corrosive Protection: A Detailed Study
The authors should check if the number 2 must be insert in the title.
Line 118
Guo evaluated the influence
The authors should replace
Guo et al. evaluated the influence
Line 942
The ref "Nie, B., Xu, S., Zhang, Z., & Li, A. Surface morphology characteristics and mechanical properties of corroded cold-formed steel channel
sections. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 42, 102786." must remove and renumber (49?).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
