Microstructure and Wear Behaviors of Plasma-Sprayed MoAlB Ceramic Coating

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript submitted for review meets the requirements of the periodical. The manuscript contains interesting current research results concerning the tribological properties of MoAlB coatings.

1. Abstract: The object of research, the aim of the work and major conclusions have been given in the abstract. The abstract has been written in accordance with the guidelines from the periodical.
2. Introduction: The authors explained the need for the research in question while referring to relevant reference literature. As an introduction, it is worth emphasizing the option to use MoAlB coatings in various tribological kinematic pairs, especially to increase the durability of vehicle components and press-in connections. It is worth studying the following publication: Failure analysis of the elements of a forced-in joint operating in rotational bending conditions. Engineering Failure Analysis 118, 2020, 104864
3.  Materials and Methods: The chapter has been prepared in a correct way. The test method has been discussed, the research material described, and the survey instruments discussed. Please graphically present the method of carrying out the tribological tests. Please also add the number of tested samples.
4. Results and discussion: In the chapter containing test results, relevant graphic documentation has been presented and the results have been discussed.
5. Line 122. Please explain "different powers".
6. Conclusions: The manuscript ends with the conclusion providing a summary of the activities undertaken in this work. The chapter is written correctly.
7. Reference literature: The reference literature consists of 39 items. The authors quote current reference literature relevant to the topic of the article. Quoting was done in accordance with the guidelines from the periodical.
8. It is suggested that the manuscript should be published in the “Coatings”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. the current study investigates the wear performance of plasma sprayed MoAlB ceramic coating applied on steel surface using different arc powers levels. the authors study the resulting microstructure and wear behaviour of applied coatings against GCr15 and Si3N4 materials. The authors found that improving the arc power resulted in more decomposition of MoAlB ceramic coating and become denser. Wear rates also decreased when increasing arc power due to the improvement of density and adhesive strength among splats.
2. Please consider reviewing the abstract and highlight the novelty, major findings and conclusions.
3. in abstract: with the improvement of the arc power? (which is not clear what is meant by here, is it increase or decrease?) please be precise and clear when describing your findings and observations.
4. Literature review in the introduction is very limited and basic, more work is needed to improve it.
5. 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.
6. Please add more literature review, discuss what previous studies have done, what were their main findings and how does your work bring new knowledge and difference to the field.
7. Table 1 why the authors choose those specific parameters, are they randomly chosen for this study or they are based on recommendations from industry or for this specific coating?
8. “higher than those of C-500 and C-550, indicating that with the increase of power,  the decomposition of MoAlB accelerated fast” how fast was this, can you quantify it with numbers or percentage because fast is very vague word to describe a phenomena, also what about past studies? Did they find similar findings or different from yours?
9. “there were many un-molten or sem…” please don’t use words such as many! Please quantify or using non countable wording
10. Line 138-140 what does that mean for the coating performance? Also how about past studies did they find and report similar results or different from yours? Please discuss more and support with references
11. “fully powder spreading with fewer semi-molten particles, and the pores are  smaller and fewer.” These are all very generic reporting according to limited SEM imaging, please discuss further and support with references
12. “friction coefficient curve of C-600 was more steady than those of C-500 and C-550.” Why please discuss and support with references
13. The results are described and detailed to good level but more discussion is needed so that it is not just limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include more 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 3 Report

The high stadards of the journal required the suggested comments gathered in attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The reviewed work is an interesting research material concerning the application of ceramic coatings on a steel substrate. The methodology and quality of the presented research results is at the appropriate level and, in my opinion, meets the requirements of the coatings journal. Nevertheless, I am not entirely satisfied with the presented results. In my opinion, the authors should provide information on the thickness and uniformity of the ceramic coating on the cross-section depending on the coating technology. A valuable supplement to the work could be the study of surface roughness or surface topography.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

all questions answered