Experimental, Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamic Study on Corrosion Inhibition of Mild Steel by Pyridine Derivatives in Aqueous Perchloric Acid
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the author studied the inhibition efficiency of several pyridine derivatives on mild steel corrosion in perchlorate acid. 
Multiple theoretical analytical methods including DFT, Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics were used to compare with electrochemical measurements. I suggest accepting this manuscript after they address the following concerns.
- More details should be explained regarding the multiple steps for calculations shown in Figure 1.
- Multiple figures/tables should be reorganized and some should be placed in an extra supporting document in order to keep the main body concise and organized. For example, Table 1 on P4, Figure 5 on P9 and Table 3 on P9.
Some minor points of notice:
- Line 58, add “of” before “DFT”, “The calculations DFT” 

- Line 86, “4” should be written in the lower case in “HClO4”
- Line 97, add “%” in front of 27.56
- Multiple figures’ numbers are not named correctly. “Figure 2” on P5 should be “Figure 3”; “Figure 3” on P7 should be “Figure 4”; another renamed “Figure 3” on P7 should be “Figure 5” etc. Thus the reference of each figure’s number in the main text should also be corrected.
- In table 2 on P6, “HOMO” on the first line was bolded. Should be corrected into the same format.
- Line 168, Remove “the” in front of “Figure 4”
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time and effort necessary to review our manuscript. We took all of your comments and suggestions into consideration in the reviewed version of our manuscript.
Kind regards,
AB
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript Number: electrochem-785472
The manuscript entited “Experimental, Monte Carlo and Molecular dynamic study on corrosion inhibition of mild steel by pyridine derivatives in aqueous perchloric acid” by Berisha et al. described both experimental and molecular dynamic studies of various corrosion inhabitants and its corrosion preventing mechanism was described wel. Overall, the manuscript is well written, the experimental studies are systematically investigated. However prior to accept the manuscript for publication, the following queries need to be addressed.
- Surface morphological studies such as SEM should be provided before and after corrosion test.
- SVET data of corrosion inhibition should be provided as supporting information.
- Language needs to be polished well. Equations should be written properly
- The relevant citation of these corrosion inhabitants and its efficiency should be described
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time and effort necessary to review our manuscript. We took all of your comments and suggestions into consideration in the reviewed version of our manuscript.
Kind regards,
AB
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, authors report on the use of pyridine derivatives for the corrosion inhibition of steel in aqueous perchloric acid. It is a not a well written paper, many typos, unnecessary spaces, grammar mistakes could be found in the whole manuscript. The results are less experimental and mostly rely on theoretical calculations. The novelty of the work is not clear. Overall, I have many suggestions for the author in order to improve his manuscript before it could be published.
Specific Comments:
(1) The abstract is very short and more details need to be added, especially something about the novelty of this work.
(2) The introduction is short, all is given in a paragraph! Other methods used for the prevention or decrease of corrosion of mild steel need to be mentioned. Why the method the author proposes is better, what are the advantages, why using the pyridine derivatives? The author needs to clearly state the novelty of this work, especially as pyridine has been used a lot in the past for this application.
(3) The author needs to renumber all the figures in his manuscript, there are two figures 2 and two figures 3, lots of confusion is created because of that.
(4) There are many typos, grammar mistakes and unnecessary gaps in in the manuscript, lines 41, 46, 48, 55, 65, 67, 69, 73, 93, 113, 126, 130, 132, 134, 142, 146, 168, 169, 172, 151, 162, 163, 160, 220 etc.
(5) The author needs to check the units he is using again, either with / or without.. for example line 55, lines 161 and 162. In addition, subscripts and superscripts need to be used in units and chemical formulas, line 55, 73, 86, 87, 93.
(6) The author is using abbreviations in the text without explaining what it is, for example, DFT, PBE, GGA.
(7) In section 2.1, what is the volume of the 3-electrode cell the author is using, of what type of material?
(8) The author is using equations without explaining the parameters of them in the text, for example equation 1 in line 89, all of it should be in one line, explain what IE(%) and the rest of the parameters. The same applies to equation 2, line 143, what is Ecomplex? What is EFC and what Fe(110)?
(9) In figure 2 what is the volume of HCLO4 used?
(10) In table 1 the chemical structure of one of the inhibitors is missing. In addition, the variation of IE (%) for each inhibitor is due to what?
(11) How are the inhibitors adsorbed on steel?
(12) Figure 1 is confusing and not well presented.
(13) In table 1 what is the asterisk after coefficient?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time and effort necessary to review our manuscript. We took all of your comments and suggestions into consideration in the reviewed version of our manuscript.
Kind regards,
AB
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors responded to my comments and improved the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has replied to all my comments and suggestions successfully and to my satisfaction. I believe that the quality of the manuscript has improved a lot. A minor suggestion is that the author should add the structure of the last corrosion media presented in table 1. I recommend that the manuscript should be accepted for publication.
