Impact of Magnetic Field Direction on Performance and Structure of Ni-Co-SiC Coatings Fabricated via Magnetic-Field-Induced Electrodeposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript reports the results of a study on the influence of a magnetic field on the electrodeposition of composite Ni-Co-SiC coatings on a steel substrate. The effect of the magnetic field on the surface morphology, surface roughness, microstructure, friction coefficients, microhardness, and corrosion resistance of the coatings is established. The manuscript deserves the attention of potential readers and may be recommended for publication in Coatings, but only after the authors consider a number of comments that, in my opinion, would contribute to improving the scientific quality of the work. My main suggestions and questions are outlined below.
1. There are comments regarding the list of cited literature. Cited literature serves as both a scientific background for correctly positioning the research and adequately justifying the goals and objectives of the work, as well as a basis for explaining and interpreting the obtained results. In this case, these functions are not fully realized. Firstly, there is a clear bias towards predominantly mono-national citation. Secondly, the list of cited literature could be expanded somewhat. Primarily, there is an obvious need to cite key review articles dedicated to general patterns of electrochemical deposition of composite coatings and their characterization. Additionally, key reviews covering the influence of magnetic fields on electrochemical processes and electrodeposition should be cited.
2. The choice of electrolyte for deposition and the conditions of electrolysis should be justified. Why was this particular electrolyte composition chosen? Briefly characterize the functions of individual electrolyte components. Why were specific values of current density, duty cycle, and temperature chosen for deposition? Are they optimal? These questions should be addressed.
3. The authors conducted the study using pulse current. However, stationary current regimes, where the current is constant over time, are more traditional. The question arises: will the conclusions drawn in the study apply to the deposition of the same alloy under conditions of constant current? This is an important question.
4. More detail should be provided on the influence of the magnetic field on the chemical composition of the coating. The EDS analysis data should be systematized in a separate table. The mechanisms and reasons for the observed effects should also be interpreted.
5. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, method. Therefore, especially since a specific equivalent circuit was chosen, the results of calculating quantitative characteristics of individual elements of the equivalent circuit should be provided, along with a discussion of the obtained results. Simply presenting Nyquist plots (Fig. 12) without their quantitative analysis is a somewhat unprofessional approach.
6. The elements of discussion in the manuscript need to be strengthened. It is necessary not only to describe and state experimental facts but also to attempt to provide them with consistent and convincing explanation and interpretation within the framework of known theoretical concepts. This comment applies to all components of the experimental part of the work.
7. The quality of SEM and TEM images is not very high. Is it possible to improve it? The scale bar is poorly visible on SEM images.
Author Response
Please see the attachment (R1)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments are noted by me (in color font) in the PDF file of the article.
After taking into account and correcting the comments I have indicated, the article can be recommended for publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The text of the article contains many unfounded and unnecessary words:
(widely, distinctive, usually, in a simple, non-contact and environmentally friendly way, significant interest, with other known methods, several characteristics, metallic, important physical and chemical properties, in various industries, important characteristics, therefore, significant, some, numerous, obviously).
These words do not carry a scientific meaning and can be removed from the text.
The authors need to edit the text of the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment (R2).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the authors present the synthesis and study of Ni-Co-SiC coatings in the presence of a magnetic field of different directions. This work is quite extensive, and the results make it clear what effect the magnetic field has on the formation of Ni-Co-Sic nanoparticles in electrochemical deposition processes. However, in the course of reading, I noticed several flaws:
1. In the introduction, namely in the last sentence of the last paragraph, the authors list the research methods. The terms 79 and 80 list the same methods as in line 84. (electrochemical analysis, frictiom wear testing, hardness tester.)
2. 2. Were SiC nanoparticles taken as germ nanoparticles in colloidal solution or as nanopowder? Have the sizes of the nanoparticles 35 by 98 nm been confirmed by electron microscopy?
3. Do the magnetic field generators used for synthesis generate a permanent magnetic field? How can the structure of nanoparticles change in an experiment with an alternating magnetic field?
4. In this paper, the authors presented 3 samples that were obtained by electrochemical deposition in the presence of a perpendicular and parallel magnetic field with a magnetic induction value of 0.4 T and without a magnetic field. In my opinion, it would be interesting if the work had several samples obtained with different characteristics of the magnetic field. For example, parallel and perpendicular with a magnetic induction value of 0.2–0.3 T and parallel and perpendicular with a magnetic induction value of 0.5–0.6 T. It would be interesting how the structure of nanoparticles will change from a change in this characteristic.
5. The results and discussions section mentions the MHD effect. Tell us about it in more detail in the introduction. Explain what effect it has on the formation of nanoparticles.
6. In my opinion, it is necessary to improve the quality of the SEM images shown in Figure 2
7. Figure 3 shows the layout of the magnetic and electric field lines. However, why are the electric field lines directed differently in both experiments? I expected that in both experiments the electric field lines would be directed perpendicular to the substrate, and the direction of the magnetic lines would change relative to the substrate, but the diagram shows the opposite.
8. In Figure 2, in the SEM image, the authors mark the nanoparticles NiCo, SiC with separate markers. What are the confirmations that these are exactly these nanoparticles? Did the authors understand this from the elementary analysis?
9. The quality of Figure 7 needs to be improved. It is worth aligning the images and cropping them evenly. The same is true with Figure 13. Describe the insertion in Figure 12.
10. After Figure 13, briefly summarize the general results and describe how this technology for producing nanoparticles in a magnetic field can be useful for modern industry.
11. I think that in the introduction, the authors should add more relevant links to the latest research on this topic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment (R3).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Coatings. Thus, it can be recommended for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think this version of manuscript can be published.
