Effect on the Electrochemical Properties of PEO Films Produced on Commercially Pure Titanium Using Multicomponent Oxide Coatings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work contributes significantly to the understanding of surface modification techniques for CP-Ti. However, to improve the manuscript, the following issues must be addressed. I recommend publication after addressing the suggested revisions.

1. It is suggested to improve the resolution of the SEM and EDX images to better highlight surface features and elemental distributions.
2. Although it was mentioned five replicate measurements were performed for electrochemical tests, there is lack of statistical analysis, such as standard deviation, error bars.
3. The authors gave a good explanation of the electrochemical results, but the relationship between roughness, contact angle, and corrosion resistance could be expanded. How the surface topography influences the electrochemical behavior of the coatings could be further discussed.
4. References should be correctly formatted according to the journal's guidelines. Some references in the discussion section seems incomplete.
5. Please unify the units for NaCl solution. In the manuscript, somewhere 3.5% NaCl was used, somewhere 3.5 wt% NaCl was used.
6. Please ensure all abbreviations (e.g., PEO, EDX) are defined at first use.
7. For Figure 1 and Figure 3, axe Y are only labeled with units, the variables are missing.
8. In the introduction, to better review the methods to improve the corrosion resistance of Ti, in addition to surface treatments like PEO, mechanical surface strengthening methods, such as the paper https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.02.189, is also suggested to be included in the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a very interesting and up-to-date topic. 

Some comments need to be addressed before publication of the presented paper. 

1) There are some errors, eg, line 111 dissector, line 130 underline degrees. 

2) There are 30 samples and 9 different solutions. How many samples of each solution were produced? 

3) What were the EDS analysis parameters, what kV was used, and why is there Carbon on the surface?

4) Discussion supposed to be separate from the results sections, because it is difficult to follow. 

5) The title is PEO's effect on electrochemical properties. However, the paper also focuses on surface characterisation.

6) Discussion about applications is provided after the roughness and contact angle. How do electrochemical properties impact applications? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents results on the formation of ZrO2, Ta2O5, and ZrO2-Ta2O5 structures on the CP-Ti substrates. The structure, roughness, wettability, and corrosion properties were studied. Overall, the paper presents a lot of results and is interesting for the readers. However, the authors should pay attention to some aspects. My specific comments are given below:

• The introduction should be revised by adding information about the current results achieved on this topic. What has been done till now and what is still less well investigated (i.e., the research done by the authors). This will highlight the novelty of this manuscript.
• line 106: use "the diameter of..." instead of the symbol ∅
• The explanation of the results for the structure should be presented in more detail. The specific observations for the SEM, FTIR, and XRD results should be extended.
• The results of XRD analysis should be above those of contact angle and roughness. This will help in the interpretation of the following statements about the contact angle and roughness
• In my opinion, some additional explanation of the crystallographic structure of the different surface formations should be presented
• The corrosion properties should be extended regarding the crystallographic structure and microstructure of the obtained surface formations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend the paper for publication in its present form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all my comments. The manuscript has improved enough to be worthy of being accepted for publication.