Application of Self-Polishing Copolymer and Tin-Free Nanotechnology Paint for Ships
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe researchers investigated the efficiency of a tin-free nanotechnology paint as an alternative to self-polishing copolymer coatings containing tributyltin on ship hulls to prevent marine organism attachment. Their findings indicated that the tin-free nanotechnology paint decreased maintenance expenses and the necessity for repairs when compared to traditional self-polishing copolymers.
The authors should start by defining biofouling, explaining why it is undesirable, and briefly describing the most common antifouling measures and their advantages and disadvantages.
Internationally, the metric system is used, so authors should use either °C or K instead of °F and liters instead of gallons.
Tables 7 and 8 can be merged into one.
The authors state that the results indicate that self-polishing copolymers have the potential to release toxins. However, they did not perform toxin-release experiments to sustain such a claim.
The discussion needs more depth and should be improved. Findings should be confronted with those of other authors.
References are too few.
Overall, the manuscript resembles a congress paper rather than a journal paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor grammar errors detected in the text
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer for his comments, here is the reply:
The Introduction section has been revised, unit symbols have been corrected, and additional references have been included.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented paper describes the influence of the type of used coating (i.e.: self-polishing copolymer spray and tin-free nanotechnology paint) on the ability to protect ship parts against microorganisms. The topic is important and arouses interest among specialists in this area. However, the use of many unclear wording in this manuscript may be difficult for readers to understand. This paper could be published in Journal of Marine Science and Engineering after major revisions.
I have the following comments and suggestions:
1. Abstract (line 13): An abbreviation “IMO” was used without prior explanation.
2. Line 17: The sentence: “The materials will be applied to…” should be modified.
3. The introduction is short and too general. The information included in this section should introduce the reader to the topic. Moreover, the first two paragraphs (lines: 25-43) have no references.
4. Various tenses are used in this manuscript. It should be corrected.
5. Was the image (Figure 1) taken by the author? If not, please provide appropriate reference.
6. The Section titled “Literature review” is too general and should be improved.
7. The manuscript based on only 10 references. The introduction part requires to be supplemented with the latest literature reports. It is necessary to mention the types of protective coatings commonly used in this area, as well as their advantages and disadvantages.
8. Line 49: What does it mean that “The toxicity 49 intensity remains relatively stable…”?
9. Line 66: The sentence is not logical. It should be modified.
10. The authors described application of two types of protecting layers. There are any information about their composition. The advantages and disadvantages of these products should be presented (preparation, cost, etc.). What do the authors mean by "nanotechnology paint"? Does the paint contain nanoparticles (type of nanoparticles)?
11. The sentence in lines 79-80: “In 2017, Yigit et al. [6] developed…” should be clarified.
12. Please clarify and correct the information about self-polishing copolymer and nanotechnology paint Which protective layer contains tin? In lines: 175-176 authors write: “…tin-free nanotechnology paint, which contains tributyltin…”. Tributyltin is an organotin compound, which contains tin in the structure. Therefore, this term is incorrect. It refers to the entire manuscript.
13. The obtained experimental results presented in section 4.1. should be compared with similar data presented in the literature. What is the advantage of the presented solution?
14. Does the free-tin nanotechnology paint also show anti-corrosion properties?
15. Line 231: The sentence: “The steel plate thickness for Model 3 increased from…” is misleading. The steel plate thickness does not change.
16. The methodology for determining the degree of surface coverage by microorganisms should be described in detail. Is measuring the layer thickness using a caliper reliable?
17. Detailed information about the surface of the ships should be added (type of coating, Was the protect layer covered with microorganisms?, etc.). Were the ships identical?
18. Section 4.3.: In order to obtain reliable data, measurements should be performed in repetitions. Moreover, a precise analysis of results should be presented.
19. Lines 279-280: The sentence: “The results indicate that self-polishing copolymers have the potential to release tox-ins, which can contribute to marine ecological pollution.” is unclear. This is not a conclusion of presented experiments. The information is based on literature.
20. Lines 280-281: The sentence: “On the other hand, the tin-free nanotechnology paint is less likely to attract marine organisms.” should be modified.
Author Response
Response 1: Revised the full title of the IMO unit.
Response 2: "The phrase 'The materials will be applied to...' has been revised to 'A model coated with these two types of paint will be observed underwater to study the growth of marine organisms.'"
Response 3: Introduction section has been revised.
Response 5: Image has been removed.
Response 6: Revised the Literature Review section.
Response 7: Revised the Introduction and Literature Review sections and added new references.
Response 8: Technical circulars indicate that self-polishing copolymer TBT paints, when in contact with seawater, will release TBT, which dissolves and continuously releases toxic substances.
Response 9: Revised to: Research indicates that the roughness of the ship's hull surface can affect the performance of antifouling coatings at underwater ship speeds, reducing the attachment of biological fouling. This also highlights the importance of the coating.
Response 10: This refers to the fact that the film matrix of tin-free nanotechnology paint achieves a nanoscale structure, making it more difficult for biofouling to adhere to the surface of the coating.
Response 11: Revised to: In the study, a roughness function model for common coatings and fouling conditions was designed.
Response 12: Revised to: To evaluate the effectiveness of self-polishing copolymer and tin-free nanotechnology coatings in preventing biological fouling on ship hulls.
Response 13: Existing references do not include studies measuring data on biofouling. This study introduces a new approach by analyzing and comparing self-polishing copolymer coatings and tin-free nanotechnology paint.
Response 14: Tin-free nanotechnology paint, like self-polishing copolymer, has a certain level of anticorrosive effect on ship hull steel plates.
Response 15: The steel plate thickness of Model 3 increased from the original thickness in the first week to 1.15 mm in the fifth week.
Response 16: Section 4.1 has been updated with an additional explanation. Moreover, measurements were taken using both a caliper and a handheld laser thickness gauge, with similar results. Only the use of the caliper is described in the journal.
Response 17: Revised to: Two identical ships with EH36 steel hulls were selected. Below the waterline, each hull was coated with two layers of Primer and two layers of Intermediate Coat. One ship received two layers of self-polishing copolymer as the Top Coat, while the other received two layers of tin-free nanotechnology paint as the Top Coat. After applying the coatings simultaneously, a three-month trial was conducted.
Response 18: This study was conducted using the same two ships for two trials, with results being generally similar. Therefore, only one set of data is published in this journal.
Response 19: Sentence has been deleted.
Response 20 : Revised to: The results indicate that self-polishing copolymer coatings are more prone to biological fouling. In contrast, tin-free nanotechnology paint, with its smaller molecular structure, tends to accumulate less biological fouling. Additionally, since tin-free nanotechnology paint does not contain tin, it reduces pollution in marine environments.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the authors improved the paper, they did not improve the discussion, and they did not confront their findings with those of other authors. References are still too few.
However, as the manuscript deals with a topic of great interest, it may be considered for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine. Minor revision required
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer for his comments, here is the reply:
Thank you again to the reviewer for reviewing this article. Due to the limited available literature that compares marine organisms and paint films together, this experiment was proposed by my supervisor, using the school's facilities to conduct a comparison between these two types of paint films. The relevant data were collected and statistically analyzed from each experiment, and this research paper was published as a result. It can provide reference data for future readers of this journal, ship designers, and shipyards.
Thank you for the editor's suggestions and reminders. The review comments have been revised and responded to. If any further modifications or adjustments are needed, please feel free to let me know!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors responded correctly to the Reviewer's comments.
I have only one suggestion:
For such large values of data presented in Table 7, the digits after the decimal point should be omitted, for example: it should be 500 instead of 500.3. Moreover, a short information on the presented data should be added (Please refer to the response for comment no. 18, i.e.: "This study was conducted using the same two ships for two trials, with results being generally similar."). Is this the average value of two measurements?
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer for his comments, here is the reply:
An additional explanation has been added in Section 4.3: 'When the two ships needed to reach the design speed of 500 RPM, both types of coatings were able to reach the computer-set RPM. However, due to the varying amounts of marine biofouling on the coatings, the self-polishing copolymer required additional fuel injection to achieve the design speed.' Additionally, regarding response to comment 18, it refers to conducting two experiments. For example, one fuel consumption measurement was 211.9 liters, and another measurement was 211.8 liters, so one of the values was selected for publication. The values in Table 7 have been revised.
Thank you for the editor's suggestions and reminders. The review comments have been revised and responded to. If any further modifications or adjustments are needed, please feel free to let me know!
