A New Process for Efficient Non-Destructive Metal-Activated Composite Plating of Ni-P-Al2O3 on Titanium Base and Its Performance Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBefore publication some clarifications and improvements are necessary.
Additional comments;
l. 2 – “A new efficient and non-destructive mental activation process of composite plating of Ni-P-Al2O3 on titanium base and its wear-resistant performance” – The title is a little clear and must be improved. Moreover, there is nothing about wear-resistant performance in this paper.
l. 47 – “and micro-arc oxidation [11], etc.” – Plasma spraying should be added as a process to improve titanium alloys “plasma spray process [https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12091317], etc.”
l. 95 – “2.2.1. Substrate degreasing” – Better „Sample substrate etching”.
l. 160 – „2.4. Description” – Description of what?
l. 170 -176 – The microhardness…………length (mm).” – It is a well-known procedure and must be deleted.
l.187 – “wear tester” – Please, add type of friction mode.
l. 189 „titanium alloy ball” – Please explain, why a titanium alloy ball was applied.
l. 211 – China marks should be deleted.
l.214 – “3.1. Before and after degreasing”- Little clear.
l. 217 – “Fig 3 (a), (b) are the surface microscopic morphology” – These Figs. are a little clear and add nothing. Surface topography by light interferometry should be added.
l. 221 – “the effect of degreasing is obvious” – Any explanation?
l. 239 – “the oxidate coating had not been removed from the sample surface.” – It is speculation. The presence of oxides must be confirmed by XRD analysis.
l. 240 – “the nickel particles that were attached to the surface” – Little clear. Please show the cross-section of this layer.
l. 252 – “Figure 5” – Magnification label must be added.
l. 266 – “it proved that there were nickel particles attached to the surface of the nanoparticles” - It is speculation. Fig.7 and EDS analysis cannot be the base for such a conclusion.
l. 270 – “Figure 7” – Magnification label must be added.
l. 309 – “Based on the scanning data, the Al2O3 nanoparticles uniformly disperse on the surface of the sample along with the nickel grains, which corroborates the successful addition of the nanoparticles.” - It is speculation. Fig.9 and EDS analysis cannot be the base for such a conclusion. Moreover, the roughness of the coating must be added.
l. 313 – “Figure 9” – Magnification label must be added.
l. 314 – “The cross-section of the coating…………in Fig. 10a” - The cross-section of the coating with significantly higher magnification must be provided and discussed.
l. 320 – “Cross-Cut Tester………… Figure 10 (b).” – This part should be moved to 2.4. Description.
l. 335 – “Digital micro hardness……………. through formula (3).” - This part should be moved to 2.4. Description.
l. 340 – “688.5 HV” – Standard deviation and correct description of HV must be provided and so on.
l. 345 – “Al2O3 nanoparticles deposit on the substrate surface” – It is speculation, Authors did not show the microstructure of the coating.
l. 350 – “Table 6” – Standard deviations must be added.
l. 351 – “Rtec Viewer software….” - This sentence should be moved to 2.4. Description.
l. 352 - Fig. 11(a) shows……….. wear experiments.” – There is nothing about wear experiment.
l. 356 – “This further demonstrates…..” - It is speculation, Authors did not show any wear data.
l. 359 – “As shown in Fig. 11(b), the 359 abrasion marks…….” – This Fig. is not clear enough to draw any conclusions. Moreover, all elements of the wear process must be indicated by arrows.
l. 370 – “Figure 11a” – Standard deviations must be added.
l. 372 – Conclusions are not justified.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish must be improved by native speakers.
Author Response
Commengts 1:2 – “A new efficient and non-destructive mental activation process of composite plating of Ni-P-Al2O3 on titanium base and its wear-resistant performance” – The title is a little clear and must be improved. Moreover, there is nothing about wear-resistant performance in this paper.
Response 1:The title has been changed to “A new process for efficient non-destructive metal-activated composite plating of Ni-P-Al2O3 on titanium base and its performance research” and the performance studies in this paper are only the most basic performance tests to demonstrate the feasibility of the experimental methods.
Commengts 2:47 – “and micro-arc oxidation [11], etc.” – Plasma spraying should be added as a process to improve titanium alloys “plasma spray process [https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12091317], etc.”
Response 2:Plasma spraying was added as a process and the reference was modified.
Commengts 3:95 – “2.2.1. Substrate degreasing” – Better „Sample substrate etching”.
Response 3:Changed “Substrate degreasing” to “Sample substrate etching”.
Commengts 4: 160 – „2.4. Description” – Description of what?
Response 4:Changed “ Description” to “ Method description”.
Commengts 5:170 -176 – The microhardness…………length (mm).” – It is a well-known procedure and must be deleted.
Response 5:Deleted “The microhardness…………length (mm)”.
Commengts 6:187 – “wear tester” – Please, add type of friction mode.
Response 6:Added “wear tester” friction type as sliding friction.
Commengts 7:189 „titanium alloy ball” – Please explain, why a titanium alloy ball was applied.
Response 7:Because of the use of titanium alloy parts of the application, the requirements are relatively high, so generally the whole are made of titanium alloy, friction wear is usually titanium alloy parts interacting with each other
Commengts 8:211 – China marks should be deleted.
Response 8:China marks removed.
Commengts 9:214 – “3.1. Before and after degreasing”- Little clear.
Response 9:Changed “ 3.1. Before and after degreasing” to “ 3.1. Substrates before and after degreasing”.
Commengts 10:217 – “Fig 3 (a), (b) are the surface microscopic morphology” – These Figs. are a little clear and add nothing. Surface topography by light interferometry should be added.
Response 10:The figure has been made clear.3 (a) and (b) are less clear because of the presence of an oil film on the surface, and (b) is relatively clear because the surface oil film has been removed. The addition of light interfering with the surface morphology gives no indication of how good or bad the oil film is for hydrophilicity.
Commengts 11:221 – “the effect of degreasing is obvious” – Any explanation?
Response 11:The presence of an oil film results in a hydrophobic material surface, which is evident in 3(c), where the water contact angle is large, while after oil removal, the water contact angle becomes smaller, which allows the substrate to have better contact with solutions and ions.
Commengts 12:239 – “the oxidate coating had not been removed from the sample surface.” – It is speculation. The presence of oxides must be confirmed by XRD analysis.
Response 12:XRD analysis was added as a basis for the presence of oxides.
Commengts 13:240 – “the nickel particles that were attached to the surface” – Little clear. Please show the cross-section of this layer.
Response 13:The layer of activated nickel nanoparticles was too thin to be photographed in cross-section with a scanning electron microscope, and the only way to demonstrate the presence of nanoscale nickel particles on the activated surface was through EDS and XPS results.
Commengts 14:252 – “Figure 5” – Magnification label must be added.
Response 14:Enlargement labels have been added for Figure 5.
Commengts 15:266 – “it proved that there were nickel particles attached to the surface of the nanoparticles” - It is speculation. Fig.7 and EDS analysis cannot be the base for such a conclusion.
Response 15:In order to verify that the nanoparticles are attached to the surface as nickel particles, XPS results were added as a basis.
Commengts 16:270 – “Figure 7” – Magnification label must be added.
Response 16:Enlargement labels have been added for Figure 7.
Commengts 17:309 – “Based on the scanning data, the Al2O3 nanoparticles uniformly disperse on the surface of the sample along with the nickel grains, which corroborates the successful addition of the nanoparticles.” - It is speculation. Fig.9 and EDS analysis cannot be the base for such a conclusion. Moreover, the roughness of the coating must be added.
Response 17:The XPS results after pre-activation of the added nanoparticles were used as the basis for the success of nanoparticle addition, and the results of white light interferometry for coating roughness were also added.
Commengts 18:313 – “Figure 9” – Magnification label must be added.
Response 18:Enlargement labels have been added for Figure 9.
Commengts 19:314 – “The cross-section of the coating…………in Fig. 10a” - The cross-section of the coating with significantly higher magnification must be provided and discussed.
Response 19:Due to the limited inspection conditions, at higher magnifications, the images are more blurred and no clear demarcation lines can be seen, so it is not possible to provide a longitudinal cross-section of the coating with a significantly higher magnification.
Commengts 20:320 – “Cross-Cut Tester………… Figure 10 (b).” – This part should be moved to 2.4. Description.
Response 20:It has been expressed in the 2.4 description, but in order to correspond to this section and make it clear to the reader where it comes from, it is described here once more.
Commengts 21:335 – “Digital micro hardness……………. through formula (3).” - This part should be moved to 2.4. Description.
Response 21:It has been expressed in the 2.4 description, but in order to correspond to this section and make it clear to the reader where it comes from, it is described here once more.
Commengts 22:340 – “688.5 HV” – Standard deviation and correct description of HV must be provided and so on.
Response 22:The standard deviation under the same conditions was obtained experimentally, and this standard deviation was obtained from the same conditions because the results of the experiment were affected by a number of factors. Also revised the description of the “HV”.
Commengts 23:345 – “Al2O3 nanoparticles deposit on the substrate surface” – It is speculation, Authors did not show the microstructure of the coating.
Response 23:Limited by the experimental conditions, the nanoparticles deposited on the surface of the substrate could not be clearly displayed and could only be obtained by analyzing the EDS and XPS results.
Commengts 24:350 – “Table 6” – Standard deviations must be added.
Response 24:Changes have been made to Table 6 to add standard deviations.
Commengts 25:351 – “Rtec Viewer software….” - This sentence should be moved to 2.4. Description.
Response 25:Already moved “Rtec Viewer software…” Moved to 2.4. Description
Commengts 26:352 - Fig. 11(a) shows……….. wear experiments.” – There is nothing about wear experiment.
Response 26:This paper only briefly introduces the abrasion resistance of the plated substrate through friction experiments, and does not deal with wear and tear, which is wrongly expressed here and has been revised.
Commengts 27:356 – “This further demonstrates…..” - It is speculation, Authors did not show any wear data.
Response 27:Through friction experiments, the friction factor is derived, under the same conditions, the material with a smaller friction factor must have better wear resistance than the one with a larger friction factor, this is not speculation, there is no wear data in the text, the expression here is wrong, it has been revised.
Commengts 28:359 – “As shown in Fig. 11(b), the 359 abrasion marks…….” – This Fig. is not clear enough to draw any conclusions. Moreover, all elements of the wear process must be indicated by arrows.
Response 28:The image has been modified to convey that the coating did not penetrate after friction testing and that the coating has good abrasion resistance.
Commengts 29:370 – “Figure 11a” – Standard deviations must be added.
Response 29:Changes have been made to Figure 11a.
Commengts 30:372 – Conclusions are not justified.
Response 30:The conclusion has been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled "A new high-efficient and non-destructive mental activation process of composite plating of Ni-P-Al2O3 on titanium base and its wear-resistant performance" presents a relevant study on the improvement of the tribological properties of titanium alloys using the electrolytic composite deposition technique. The study addresses a pertinent issue in the industry, especially in aerospace applications, where low surface hardness and limited tribological performance of titanium alloys are known challenges.
The results are presented clearly, and the conclusions are in line with the evidence provided. However, the absence of some specific methodological details may limit the robustness of the conclusions, and a more in-depth review is recommended to strengthen the scientific validity of the work.
What are the specific parameters used in the compound electrolytic deposition technique, such as the concentration of the compounds in the electrolyte, the applied current density, and the temperature during the process?
How were environmental variables, such as temperature and moisture, controlled during the experiments?
What were the specific evaluation criteria used to measure tribological properties, such as coefficient of friction and wear?
Were the experiments repeated to ensure consistency and reliability of the results?
What was the method used to characterize the samples before and after deposition, and how were the uniformity of the deposited layer and the microstructure of the samples verified?
In general, the article contributes significantly to the field of study, presenting results that can have a practical impact on improving the performance of titanium alloys.
Author Response
Commengts 1:What are the specific parameters used in the compound electrolytic deposition technique, such as the concentration of the compounds in the electrolyte, the applied current density, and the temperature during the process?
Response 1:Thank you very much for your question. In the article, the concentration of the compounds in the electrolyte and the process temperature are described, and the several factors you mentioned are all data from one-way experiments.
Commengts 2:How were environmental variables, such as temperature and moisture, controlled during the experiments?
Response 2:Thank you very much for your question, firstly during the experiments, the experiments were operated indoors at room temperature. The temperatures in the experiments were measured using the relevant instruments. Comparison experiments with the same group were conducted at the same time, place and operation to reduce the influence of environmental variables.
Commengts 3:What were the specific evaluation criteria used to measure tribological properties, such as coefficient of friction and wear?
Response 3:Thank you very much for your question. The tribological properties in this article are compared primarily by measuring its friction factor. The kinetic friction factor (or coefficient of kinetic friction) is the ratio between the frictional force and the positive pressure of objects in contact with each other as they move relative to each other. When objects are in horizontal motion, positive pressure = gravity. The coefficient of kinetic friction varies for different materials; the rougher the object, the higher the coefficient of kinetic friction. The rougher the object, the greater the dynamic friction factor. dynamic friction factor Although the measurement of the dynamic friction factor can be calculated by the formula μ = f/N (μ is the coefficient of dynamic friction, unitless, f is the friction force, N is the positive pressure).
Commengts 4:Were the experiments repeated to ensure consistency and reliability of the results?
Response 4:Thank you very much for your question, the experimental result is an optimal result obtained after many experiments. And all the experimental results are similar and consistent, which can fully demonstrate the feasibility and reliability of the experiment.
Commengts 5:What was the method used to characterize the samples before and after deposition, and how were the uniformity of the deposited layer and the microstructure of the samples verified?
Response 5:Thank you very much for your question, the samples were characterised using SEM observations before and after deposition, and the samples were examined and characterised using EDS, XPS, XRD and so on. Homogeneity was verified by roughness experiments added later, and the microstructure was observed by intuitive SEM.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter correction, the article may be recommended for publication.
