Effect of Carbonitride Precipitates on the Corrosion Resistance of Low-Alloy Steels under Operating Conditions of Oil-Field Pipelines
, Ekaterina Alekseeva 2, Yuliya Gladchenkova 3 and Irina Vasechkina 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current study investigates the influence of carbonitride precipitates on the resistance of low steel alloys to corrosion in applications that are used in oil field pipelines. The authors report that precipitates were present such as vanadium carbonitride which had direct effect on reducing the corrosion resistance of the material. The authors also report that heat treatment at certain temperature improved the corrosion resistance.
The abstract needs more work, there is no mention of what the authors did exactly in the study and what they measured, Please consider reviewing the abstract and highlight the novelty, major findings and conclusions.
Please don’t use italics in abstract
In the introduction, the authors should expand their literature review in more details and summarise past studies similar to their work, mention what they did and what was their main findings and how does your current study differs from theirs and what does it bring to the field in terms of new knowledge and novelty.
What is the research gap did you find from the previous researchers in your field? Mention it properly. It will improve the strength of the article.
In section 2 materials and method please add all relevant images of test setup, samples tested and any other tests used in this study since this is an experimental work graphical illustrations must be present to give complete picture of the work done.
Table 1 needs to be supported by references if not measured by the authors
Line 172-196 this section is not really necessary and can be shortened as this is basic knowledge in the field and can be found in books and manuals. Please either remove or shorten considerably.
Line 207 please obviously
Line 211 please support this with a reference
Line 232-236 please support these claims with references. Also what about past studies similar to this work, what did they find? Was it similar to your results or different please discuss in details and support with references if necessary
Line 248-250 does this agree or disagree with past studies? Please discuss in more depth of your results instead of just describing them. This is not enough
Line 251-267 please combine smaller paragraphs into larger ones, having too many small paragraphs is not a good practice in manuscript as it makes the reading difficult to follow the idea and story of your work.
Line 268-278 please combine in one larger paragraph
Figure 2 to 7 the author should use arrows and text to show to the readers what are we looking at here
Line 291-292 please support this claim with references
Line 307-318 combine in one larger paragraph
There is literally no scientific discussion in the paper or comparison with previous studies
The results are merely described and is limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include detailed discussion and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript, entitled „ Effect of carbonitride precipitates on the corrosion resistance of low-alloy steels under operating conditions of oil-field pipe-lines” is relevant to the scope of this journal.
However, several points need to be addressed prior to publication of this manuscript. My comments/suggestions are given:
- Paragraph between lines 59-62 is identical to a phrase from reference 4. It needs to be reformulated.
- The description of the CDM method (current density measurement) must be made in the Materials and Methods chapter and not in the introductory chapter.
- I believe that the classification of particles of carbonitrides (carbides) of microalloying elements should be introduced in Discussions chapter and made clear references and comparisons with the analyzed samples.
- Table 2 must specify the unit of measurement for saturation current density (is).
- In the situation where the term corrosion resistance appears in the title, I consider that a calculation of the exact value of the corrosion rate must be made and not only a simple estimation based on saturation current density. The samples analyzed in this paper are somewhat different from those studied by the authors in previous articles, so the values may differ.
- The references should be completed with other works in the field.
- The number of self-citations is high, and this aspect should be remedied as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Lines 150 to 195 in the Materials and Methods section should be moved to the “introduction” or “Results and discussion”.
- The text of the abstract and the conclusion are very similar. They must be rewritten.
- What is the reason for using 18 melts to study precipitates?
- Draw the obtained results for comparison in graphs.
- The microscopic structure and optical metallography of the specimens should be given.
- The comparison of the achievements of this article with other similar works is not well expressed. Expand the given discussion by referring to others' achievements. Consider Metals in your reviews and citings.
- In the introduction, the influence of structure and chemical composition on the electrochemical properties of pipeline steels should be discussed. For this purpose, it is recommended to review the following resources.
[1] International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 145, 2016, 1-12, DOI 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.06.001
[2] Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 62, 2015, 97-107, DOI 10.1016/j.measurement.2014.11.011
- The text needs careful language proof-reading. Many sentences with language issues exist in the current form of the context.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 12 have been investigated
Please check the paper for English and spelling
Line 288-290 I really don’t understand why the authors add this small paragraph here, it does not seem to fit at all in there.
So in work [11], this is not good way of referencing a past work, please use proper writing style
I don’t think the authors made any efforts to improve the results and discussion section
For example in line 377 “The volume density of these preciptates is very low in all cases” how about past studies did they report similar results or different, and why.
Preciptates is this word written correct please check and amend if necessary
Please combine smaller paragraphs into larger ones
Line 403 “precipitates of the mixed type predominate..” so what does this mean for your results and why this happened, please try to further elaborate every time you report a finding and compare with it previous studies in the open literature.
Line 419-421 this is a very long sentence, please consider breaking it down to two. Also it needs referencing, did the authors get this info from their work or from past studies or books…etc
I will repeat my previous comment on the results and discussion section: The results are merely described and is limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include detailed discussion and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature. Please do this for each claim or findings you report in your work
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made all the required corrections, so the manuscript can be published in its current form.
Author Response
Thanks for your reply!
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the revised manuscript and found that the authors did not adequately address my previous comments and they totally did not consider them seriously. I believe the manuscript title is of interest but the current form contains several deficiencies that prevent the manuscript to be recommended for publication. Considering all together, I cannot recommend publication of the current manuscript in Metals.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
All questions answered
