Fabrication of a Conductive Additive for the Anticorrosion Enhancement of Zinc-Rich Epoxy Coatings
, Tingting Guo 3, Li Zhang 2, Jesse Zhu 1,4, Yuanyuan Shao 1,5, Haiping Zhang 1,*, Hui Zhang 1,4, Bin Yuan 2, Aiming Yin 2, Jinfeng Nie 2, Fan Cao 3 and Zhengjun Xu 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
English can be improved and a thorough reading is advised. Some paragraphs should be improved (it is not clear what the authors statement is)
e.g.1. To reduce the content of zinc dust without reducing the cathodic protection effect and with even enhancing corrosion resistance of zinc-rich coating.
e.g.2. The zinc-rich epoxy coating with 80% zinc dust as original coating. The replacing ratio of PPy/SCP particles to zinc dust is 1:2.5, 1:3 and 1:5 at a content of 60% zinc dust and 1:2.5 at a content of 50% zinc dust in Table 1.
The "500 h of exposure to salt spray environment" is not clearly described in ch. 3.2.1 (test standard - ASTM/ISO .. , time to stray, salt content %, etc.). It comes later, in 3.2.2.2., but still incomplete.
In current form, Figure 6 do not seems relevant
The pull-off strength test in ch. 3.2.2.3 is not described in detail (standard, procedure, equipment, test setup, etc.)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The researchers have done work based on the recent advancements. Following are the recommendations:-
1. Add all calculated properties in the form of the table to have an adequate idea about the study conducted.
2. The language should be carefully checked.
3. Correlate the work with similar recent studies and also mention the area of application.
4. The experimental details should include the necessary analysis only.
5. The authors have to add the studies related to electrochemical corrosion studies, which are important from the point of view of your work, The polarization resistance and corrosion efficiency can be calculated to add more impact in the study.
Following papers can be cited to improve the corrosion analysis part in the study: 10.1088/2051-672X/ac1044 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-020-01057-8see section 4.4 of this article for more help
https://doi.org/10.1088/2051-672X/abfc61
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, the paper has publishing potential and could be considered for publication after major revision.
Language and style should be improved, for example:
1. Introduction. Sea water with salt materials mainly sodium chloride is the largest natural electrolyte liquid in nature with strong corrosivity.
Page 2.: Conducting polymers such as polypyrrole (PPy) and polyaniline act as barrier layer and the polymeric anodic inhibitors have been widely studied for the corrosion protection of metal substrate [13-15].
Reviewer: CP has more corrosion prevention mechanisms than “barrier layer”?
Page 2. To meet the requirements on environmentally friendly and high corrosion-resistance in the harsh marine environment, conductive PPy was synthesized on lamellar sericite powder (SCP) surface by an in-situ oxidization growth method and applied in a ZRP coating.
Reviewer: sericite powder could be from many different sources, so add a few words of the sericite origin. Also, discuss a little bit sericite powder in the experimental.
Page 3: The PPy/SCP particles and zinc dust in a certain ratio were added into epoxy coating with toughener, dispersant, anti-settling agent and other additives....
Reviewer: please specify “toughener, dispersant, anti-settling agent, and other additives”
Page 3: The coated surface was cured in an oven at 60 ℃for 2h and the ZRP/PPy/SCP coating was successfully obtained.
Reviewer: The thickness of the coatings should be reported.
Figure 3: Why conductivity vs pressure is important?
Page P: as shown in Figure 7 (c), (e) and (f). These results are consistent with the roughness analysis results in Figure 9.
Reviewer: Figure 8 should be mentioned before Fig. 9.
Figure 7 is unclear.
3.2.2.4 Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
Reviewer: EIS is poorly explained, Nyquist plot should be beneficiary.
Figure 11 is not Bode spectra!
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all the recommendations raised earlier. The paper can be accepted in its current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors correctly improved their manuscript so the reviewer suggests acceptance.
