Comparative Study of Carbonaceous and Polymer Conductive Additives on Anticorrosion Performance of Epoxy Zinc-Rich Primer
, Xuliang Jin 2, Zongxuan Zhang 1, Yuxing Bai 1, Tingting Guo 3, Li Zhang 2, Hui Zhang 1,4, Jesse Zhu 1,4, Yuanyuan Shao 1,5, Haiping Zhang 1,*, Bin Yuan 2, Aiming Yin 2, Jinfeng Nie 2, Fan Cao 3 and Zhengjun Xu 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a scientifically sound manuscript for the interested audience. It would be excellent if the authors have done some scratch testing on the modified systems to see the performance as compared to the reference system. Nevertheless, the manuscript can be accepted in its current state.
Author Response
We are so grateful for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review to the article""Comparative study of conductive additives on anticorrosion
performance of epoxy zinc-rich primer" The article investigates Zn rich primer for corrosion protection of steel constructions. Carbon additives CB improve the performance of the primer as shown by the corrosion and electrochemical test.
The article is written at a good level and can be published with minor revision.
Comments
Line 48, 49 please give the scale for all potentials given in the article (for example SHE, SCE etc).
Line 202. It is not clear the link between hybridization as sp3 or sp2 with defects in the coatings. Please give more information about the interface interaction of the binder and different carbon substances.
LINE 262. "Corrosion width" is not used in corrosion literature. Please recalculate for meaning: the distance of primer delamination from the defect.
Line 295 SEC, it is a mistake.
Table 3, please give the explanation of all parameters in the table capture: resistances, CPE ..., and etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript describes the effects of conductive additives inside zinc-rich primers on corrosion resistance, as well as a comparison of anticorrosion performance of coatings.
I am listing here a few related papers (not my papers) that should be discuss in detail, for example:
Langer, Ewa, et al. "Anticorrosive effectiveness of coatings with reduced content of Zn pigments in comparison with zinc-rich primers." Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology 54.7 (2019): 627-635.
Akbarinezhad, E. "Synthesis of conductive polyaniline–graphite nanocomposite in supercritical CO2 and its application in zinc-rich epoxy primer." The Journal of Supercritical Fluids 94 (2014): 8-16.
Lei, Yanhua, et al. "Effect of conducting polyaniline/graphene nanosheet content on the corrosion behavior of zinc-rich epoxy primers in 3.5% NaCl solution." Polymers 11.5 (2019): 850.
Qi, Chunping, et al. "Enhanced anticorrosion performance of zinc rich epoxy coatings modified with stainless steel flakes." Progress in Organic Coatings 163 (2022): 106616.
And many more…
Title:
Acceptable, but the conductive additives need to be noted.
Abstract:
The content of the abstract presentation is unclear.
Abstracts generally consist of four items: introduction to the work, the method that was used, main findings and novelty/conclusion of the work.
Abstract is too long.
Introduction:
Introduction should at least 3 components/paragraphs:
a. introduction to the field
b. problem statement
c. Objective and method
L38-49: This paragraph is too general about its contents, so it should be removed.
L59-87: The paragraph is too long, make two paragraphs that focus on the literature and problem statement
L89-105: Too long for objective and methods. The objectives need to be rephrased. Mention methods in general without mentioning all compositions.
Experimental:
Table 1: all materials are at different size, then this work is not valid.
Table 1: How that the PANi have size? Need to show original shape of materials.
L147: It does not clear about testing measurement and the value of conductivity is very sensitive or fluctuate.
Results and Discussion:
L202: “The lowest conductivity of CB is because that the mixture of sp3 and sp2 hybridized carbon atoms causing more defects”, there are no XPS results for SP3 and SP2 that you can use to support your claims.
Figure 2: The porosity of material will increase when powder materials are added, so it is important to measure the porosity of the material.
Figure 8: There is no valid comparison since all conductive materials do not have the same parameters (such as size of sample, shape etc).
In the text, where is Figure 5? To verify corrosion products, you should use XRD.
Conclusion
L436: As parameters are totally different, it is very difficult to draw any conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The article can be accepted by present form.
