Study on Variable Stress Corrosion Susceptibility of Four Typical High-Strength Sucker Rods in High-Salinity Well Fluids
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors tried to improve their study but as to my point of view changes are insufficient to justify publication. Discussion is not comprehensive and adding several figures in the main body of the manuscript is not sufficient. Secondly there is a lot of slip of pen or typos (e.g., In (c) and (d) of Fig. 12 - should be Figures 12c and 12d present..., etc.)
Overall, I suggest authors to make more in deep review of current state of art in the field and then notably improve manuscript introduction and discussion.
Paper is not easy to follow and many typos.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
I acknowledge the remarkable effort in preparing your research. You address a topic of interest in a way that is interesting.
The motivation of your work is very well justified and of interest to the extractive industry of crude oil in wells. However, the manuscript must be reformulated to be considered for publication in processes.
The manuscript presents significant errors in format and the analysis of results with weak conclusions and little contribution to the area of ​​interest.
Line 13: Please check the relevance of establishing that the research in a specific area is not perfect.
Line 18: please delete one of the words: loss.
The ideas expressed in the paragraphs formed between the following lines urgently need to be reviewed, simplified, or reformulated:
- Lines 48-51.
- Lines 56-61.
- Lines 64-68.
- Lines 73-76.
- Lines 76-81.
- Lines 82-88 (particularly emphasized since it weakens the work's justification).
These ideas could be clearer, easier to read, or stronger.
Line 141: Does the high activity of sodium and potassium refer to their thermodynamic activity? Couldn't they undergo some oxidation-reduction process if the chemical activity is high?
Lines 152-160: You should thoroughly check the wording of this paragraph. It is complex to read. Between lines 159 and 160, there is an internal instruction between the authors of the work.
- Lines 166-168: please check the wording of the paragraph.
- Please check the format of Table 2.
- Please check the paragraph from lines 169 to 171, as it does not make sense.
- Line 195: please check the term: small amount. Please do not use this type of expression when you want to describe the degree of progress of a process.
- Line 197: Based on what you describe, the existence of a passive film that penetrates the Cl-? If so, why does the corrosion process continue?
- Based on what do you propose the formation of an ionic corrosion product such as FeCO3-?
- Figure 6: Does this figure show the surface of the materials after 30 days of contact with the solution?
- Lines 215 and 216: Why do you state that the corrosion resistance of 30CrMoA is weaker than that of 4330?
- Lines 247 to 251: If you establish differences between the corrosion condition of the 20CrMoA and 4142 materials and the rest, why do you describe them as similar?
- Was the behavior observed in Figures 12 and 13 and summarized in Table 3 contrary to what was expected? What does a negative value of elongation loss represent?
- How can it be explained that the behavior of all the materials was very different under tests 3 and 6 conditions if the systems are very similar, at least under the conditions of Cl- concentration?
- Line 362: The corrosion products in the 30CrMoA sample are more than those of the 4330, in terms of what?
- Would it be possible to reinforce conclusion 4) of the list in the results section?
- It is necessary to check the references in detail. There are inconsistencies and errors in the data.
Kind regards.
The Reviewer.
An urgent and detailed review by an English language editor is required. There are spelling and grammatical errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Q1. To accurately reflect the content of the investigations, the title of the publication needs to be changed.
Q2. In the abstract, you should briefly explain the background, provide your own research methodology, and then give a quick rundown of the experimental portion and the results.
Q3. Please include a detailed introduction to the related work so that readers can better comprehend the study that is being discussed in the article.
Q4. Please provide other references from the previous three years.
Q5.To provide an explanation of what is shown in figures, figure captions need to be more elaborate, e.g., figure1, 2
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript has been revised and it is essentially in better shape than original version. There is still some slip of the pen that should be corrected but, overall, study can be accepted.
Please correct slip of pens.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
I have reviewed the new version of your manuscript, and I thank you and acknowledge that you have taken into account my comments and suggestions, as well as those of the rest of the reviewers. In the future, they should try to rely on professionals who publish scientific papers. I congratulate you in advance for your effort.
The changes you made to your manuscript have considerably improved your work, so I recommend its publication in this journal. However, consider the following:
- Review once more the wording to resolve minor issues.
- Shorten the abstract. It's too long.
- Review the term more excellent in the conclusions.
- Lines 70 to 73: Reduce the use of the term corrosion.
- Line 76 and others: Please consider another word for scholars.
- Line 83: What do you mean by "to reveal the stress corrosion resistance law"? To propose a physical law, a mathematical correlation to estimate corrosion, or to measure the degree of corrosion of a material?
- Lines 160 and 161: What do you mean by gradients? Specific concentration values?
- Please separate the magnitude and unit in the physical quantities.
- In Table 2: you can remove the materials and the intensity and write it in the text or the caption.
- Please check the idea between lines 186 and 189.
-Lines 321 to 338: Why not describe the behavior of different materials in terms of the degree of corrosion instead of the number of corrosion products? Information on the chemical and speciation characterization of such products is not provided.
Please consider these comments and suggestions as a contribution to your work.
Kind regards,
The reviewer
The writing has improved considerably compared to the previous version of your manuscript. Please review in detail to resolve minor language and format issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
