Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-  Extensive editing of English language and style required.  There are many grammatical errors and misspelling in the manuscript, which lead to misunderstanding and confusion about the results.

- No experimental description should be in the abstract

- Introduction does not include proper references on previously published articles on Al 7075 and Ni cold spray coatings and does not provide scientific significance for the study. Must be extensively revised.

- Materials and methods section can be significantly improved by tabulating some of the information as well as providing more explanation on some of methods used different experiments.

 - No description on what kind of hydrogen reduction method was used for powder production.

- Some of the statements in the Results section can be moved to Methods section to make the flow better in the manuscript.

- No reasoning and explanation is provided for most of the observed phenomena and behaviors, such as for line 200, 203, 212-219, and many other instances.  

- Conclusion section should be revised to have a combination of conclusions based on the work, as well as broader implications of findings.  

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

 

Thank you very much for the in-depth and substantive review of our article. Below, point by point, we have edited the responses to comments and suggestions that the reviewers have written. Moreover, the added or modified text is yellow marked.

 

 

1. Extensive editing of English language and style required.  There are many grammatical errors and misspelling in the manuscript, which lead to misunderstanding and confusion about the results.

Response: The content of the article has been checked. Grammatical and stylistic errors have been improved in the text of the work.

2. No experimental description should be in the abstract

Response: The content of the abstract was checked. The Abstract cites only the necessary information about the applied research methods.

 

3. Introduction does not include proper references on previously published articles on Al 7075 and Ni cold spray coatings and does not provide scientific significance for the study. Must be extensively revised.

Response: Introduction section has been improved. The articles concerning cold sprayed Ni coatings and Al7075 alloy were added and discussed.

 

4. Materials and methods section can be significantly improved by tabulating some of the information as well as providing more explanation on some of methods used different experiments.

Response: The chapter: 2. Materials and Methods in the article has been written from the beginning. Information on materials and research methods was ordered and compiled in the right order.

 

5. No description on what kind of hydrogen reduction method was used for powder production.

Response: In this paper, the used Ni powders are commercially available. They were bought in various manufactures. The method of powders production written in this paper was taken from their technical date sheets. However, the manufactures do not provide the details of the method of powder production.

 

6. Some of the statements in the Results section can be moved to Methods section to make the flow better in the manuscript.

Response: Some unnecessary statements that were in the chapter: 3 Results and discussion were moved to the chapter: 2. Materials and Methods. Better clarity of the article content has been obtained.

 

7. No reasoning and explanation is provided for most of the observed phenomena and behaviors, such as for line 200, 203, 212-219, and many other instances.

Response: Additional explanations of the observed phenomena have been provided (lines: 200, 203 and 212 – 219).

 

8. Conclusion section should be revised to have a combination of conclusions based on the work, as well as broader implications of findings.

Response: The conclusion section was checked. Some unnecessary statements have been deleted. The text of the conclusion was completed in such a way that it accurately reflects the results obtained.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper includes a lot of english mistakes + typography errors.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

 

Thank you very much for the in-depth and substantive review of our article. Below, point by point, we have edited the responses to comments and suggestions that the reviewers have written. Moreover, the added or modified text is yellow marked.

 

 

The paper includes a lot of English mistakes + typography errors.

 

Response: The content of the article has been checked. Grammatical and stylistic errors have been improved in the text of the work.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

If possible, the chemical composition of the Ni powders should be listed. The impurities in the Ni powders have a possibility to effect on the electrochemical results.

 

The surface roughness of the sprayed coatings was different with Ni powder grain size in figure 4. Then, the actual surface area of the coatings was also not the same. Therefore, the  polarization curves in figure 8 may be affected by the actual surface area of the coatings.  

 

The residual stresses were reported. However, the correlation between the residual stress and the corrosion property was not discussed. This discussion would enhance a scientific value of the paper.   　　

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

 

Thank you very much for the in-depth and substantive review of our article. Below, point by point, we have edited the responses to comments and suggestions that the reviewers have written. Moreover, the added or modified text is yellow marked.

 

1. If possible, the chemical   composition of the Ni powders should be listed. The impurities in the Ni   powders have a possibility to effect on the electrochemical results.  Response: Unfortunately, we could not find the right information on the chemical composition   (mainly impurities) of the nickel powders that were used to produce the   coatings. It seems to us that such information is probably included in the   technical sheets of a given powder. Unfortunately, we do not have access to   them. We only managed to determine the nickel content at 99.7 or 99.8% Ni in   powder. 2. The surface roughness of the   sprayed coatings was different with Ni powder grain size in Figure 4. Then,   the actual surface area of the coatings was also not the same. Therefore,   the  polarization curves in figure 8 may be affected by the actual   surface area of the coatings.  Response: We agree with the Reviewer opinion   that the surface topography of the coatings influences on the configuration   of the potentiodynamic polarization curves (LSV) obtained for the tested materials. Therefore, we should use the actual value of the electrode surface, but   not the geometric one. Unfortunately, we could not determine the actual   surface of the working electrodes. To reduce the error of LSV measurements we used the defined   value of the electrode surface, and recorded the results in the form of   current density (i.e. j, mA cm2). In addition, contamination with other   metals of nickel powders was negligible (about 0.2%), so we have not sought   any significant changes in the configuration of LSV curves. 3. The residual stresses were   reported. However, the correlation between the residual stress and the   corrosion property was not discussed. This discussion would enhance a   scientific value of the paper.

 

Response: The discussion of research results on the residual stress of the substrate was supplemented.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Major improvement in the language is required before any further consideration as there are so many grammatical errors in the manuscript which make it even difficult to read and understand.  

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

 

Thank you very much for the in-depth and substantive review of our article. Below, point by point, we have edited the responses to comments and suggestions that the reviewers have written. Moreover, the added or modified text are yellow marked.

 

 

1. Extensive editing of English language and style required.  There are many grammatical errors and misspelling in the manuscript, which lead to misunderstanding and confusion about the results.

Response: The content of our article has been checked. Language and stylistic errors have been corrected.