Next Article in Journal
Carbon Dots as a Sustainable New Platform for Organic Light Emitting Diode
Previous Article in Journal
Microencapsulation of Cannabidiol in Liposomes as Coating for Cellulose for Potential Advanced Sanitary Material
Article
Peer-Review Record

Surface Modification of Aluminum 6061-O Alloy by Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation to Improve Corrosion Resistance Properties

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Received: 25 November 2020 / Revised: 14 December 2020 / Accepted: 16 December 2020 / Published: 22 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Corrosion, Wear and Erosion)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have described surface modified Al 6061-O alloy to improve corrosion resistance. However, it is still not clear to me why the presence of intermetallic compounds Al-Si-Mg-Cu allys can be an ideal solution.   Main problem with the paper is that results section is too compact and uneasy to follow – e.g. there have more flow to easy read and maybe some further graphical and clear representation of the results. Although the method seems to be promising the results have to be better presented so the paper could have the better impact on material scientists dealing with the improvement of corrosion resistance properties.

There are so many typos:

  1. Line 94: 2900 mm²
  2. Please use the correct symbol of micron
  3. Figure 4, error in axis
  4. What is Al2O3.fluoride?

5. How was the cross sectional view samples made on SEM?

6. To me, Figure 3 is very hard to understand because the authors show the results on line 178-179 and line 195-197 which is not clear observed on Figure 3.

7. It is also not clear how the authors have modified the surface prior to the corrosion.

Author Response

Respond to Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have described surface modified Al 6061-O alloy to improve corrosion resistance. However, it is still not clear to me why the presence of intermetallic compounds Al-Si-Mg-Cu alloys can be an ideal solution.   Main problem with the paper is that results section is too compact and uneasy to follow – e.g. there have more flow to easy read and maybe some further graphical and clear representation of the results. Although the method seems to be promising the results have to be better presented so the paper could have the better impact on material scientists dealing with the improvement of corrosion resistance properties.

The authors are very much appreciated your time reviewing the manuscript. The comments were right to the point of improving the document. The manuscript has been revised and updated according to the comments. We hope that in the present form, the manuscript could be acceptable for publication.

There are so many typos:

  1. Line 94: 2900 mm²

The size of the rectangular specimens’ used in this study was 23x100 mm and at 1 mm thickness. However, the PEO-treated area was kept at 60x23x1 mm, with a total surface area of 2900 mm^2 (0.29 dm^2). Thus, the current density was maintained at 5.16 Adm^-2 during the current of 1.5 A applied in unipolar mode.

The manuscript is updated.

  1. Please use the correct symbol of micron

The manuscript is updated.

  1. Figure 4, error in axis

The manuscript is updated.

  1. What is Al2O3.fluoride?

Thank you very much for pointing to this typo.

The manuscript is updated.

5. How was the cross sectional view samples made on SEM?

Special precautions have been taken to ensure that the coating layer is not affected by the sample preparation procedure. Generally, we follow the standard practices described in Buehler’s guide “The science behind materials preparation.” Indeed, our observations did not reveal evidence of structural artifacts that could be associated with sample crosssection preparation procedures.

Paragraph 2.3. of the manuscript has been updated.

6. To me, Figure 3 is very hard to understand because the authors show the results on line 178-179 and line 195-197 which is not clear observed on Figure 3.

The Reviewer is correct. Nevertheless, the authors believe that a graphical representation of experimentally observed data is crucial to support the discussed results and findings. Paragraph 2.3. of the manuscript has been updated to indicate the method involved in collecting Icorr, and Ecorr values from data fit analysis (Tafel extrapolation).

7. It is also not clear how the authors have modified the surface prior to the corrosion.

In the present study, the Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation process has been utilized to modify AA 6061-O surface and obtain the oxide layers with different coating thicknesses. There was no other surface treatment involved before conducting electrochemical research.

The manuscript has been updated.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic sounds well with a nice approach to the problem however by following these recommendations, it would be more improved and easier for the readers to have the outcomes.

 

1) Introduction looks fine however lack of recent findings. Over 70% of references back to older than 2015, so highly recommended to add more recent research.

2) Line 92-93: Better is to present different materials in a table with detail of chemical components.

3) Line 137: when you are describing the SEM. If possible, add working distance and voltage.

4) Line 230. How you get the value of icorr? Tafel fit or other methods?

5) The results discussed in a reasonable way but still need some improvement, specially for a deep description of happening, so I recommended revising that section to have a better outcome.

6) Conclusion should also revise based on the previous comments.

 

 

Author Response

Respond to Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic sounds well with a nice approach to the problem however by following these recommendations, it would be more improved and easier for the readers to have the outcomes.

The authors are very much appreciated your time reviewing the manuscript. The comments were right to the point of improving the document. The manuscript has been revised and updated according to the comments. We hope that in the present form, the manuscript could be acceptable for publication.

1) Introduction looks fine however lack of recent findings. Over 70% of references back to older than 2015, so highly recommended to add more recent research.

The manuscript has been revised and updated.

2) Line 92-93: Better is to present different materials in a table with detail of chemical components.

The manuscript has been revised and updated.

3) Line 137: when you are describing the SEM. If possible, add working distance and voltage.

The images have been revised and the manuscript updated.

4) Line 230. How you get the value of icorr? Tafel fit or other methods?

Thank you very much for pointing to this typo. The Reviewer is correct; both Icorr and Ecorr values came from Tafel fit analysis. The manuscript has been revised, and paragraph 2.3. was updated.

5) The results discussed in a reasonable way but still need some improvement, specially for a deep description of happening, so I recommended revising that section to have a better outcome.

The manuscript has been revised and updated.

6) Conclusion should also revise based on the previous comments.

The manuscript has been revised and updated.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript based on the reviewers comments. There is one minor comment: please revise all of your figures because the resolution is poor and text/scale bar is sometimes unreadable.

Author Response

Respond to Reviewer

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript based on the reviewers comments. There is one minor comment: please revise all of your figures because the resolution is poor and text/scale bar is sometimes unreadable.

The images have been revised and the manuscript updated. The separate document including the figures in high-resolution format was additionally submitted to the journal.

 

Back to TopTop