A Novel Protection Method for Carbonate Stone Artifacts with Gypsum Weathering Crusts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting study about a protection method based on gypsum weathering crust for carbonate stone relics. However, the paper needs major revisions before it is processed further, some comments follow:

Abstract:

The abstract must be improved. Please highlight the novelty of the study and indicate the main conclusions or interpretations (introduce quantitative results).

 

Introduction section

The introduction section must be improved.

The affirmations: "However, the stability of....”, " With the development of industrialization, the content of these kinds of chemicals...”, ” This transforms the calcium carbonate into calcium sulfate...” ...”, ” This transforms the calcium carbonate into calcium sulfate...” ...”, ” These acquired substances will provide a protective...” ...”, ” When it gets contacted with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the gypsum or other sulfate such as sodium...” ...”, ” Recently, to overcome the aforementioned problems, we have proposed the methanol solution of barium hydroxide...” aren’t supported by the provided reference or experimental results – please introduce corresponding citations.

In the last paragraph of the introduction section please highlight the novelty and the aim of this study.

 

Materials and methods

Equation 1. Introduce details about the parameters.

 

Results and discussion

Divide this section into subsections. For example 3.1. Morphological characterization

Please add the discussion about Figures 2 and 3 before the figures. Also, in Figures 2 and 7 introduce labels to highlight the interest zone for the reader.

 

Conclusions

After a such qualitative paper, the conclusion looks vague. The conclusion can be written by points. Add quantitative results and also limitations and suggestions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript titled: “A Novel Protection Method for the Carbonate Stone Relics with Gypsum Weathering Crust” co-authored by Lu et al., submitted to Coatings (Coatings-1991120)

I had the opportunity to read the above manuscript, which deals with a method to protect sulphated surfaces on monumental artifacts and to protect them from further weathering and erosion.

The concept is generally good but in my view the manuscript has several issues which should be resolved. Maybe the most important is that a similar article by nearly the same group is recently published in Applied Physics A, 128. I have the feeling that there is a huge overlap with the submitted manuscript to Coatings. I expect the authors to clarify if there are novel elements in this ms and I hope they have not made a double submission. In my opinion, the current ms lacks novelty. I am not sure if the authors imply that the use of urea is the novel aspect. In my view it is not and moreover if this was intended to be the focus of the current ms, there is so much distraction with the overlapping data and result that the focus is lost.

One other issue that I also raise in the annotated text is that the manuscript does not discuss the erosion issues deriving from the molar volume changes of the new phases. Gypsum has a much higher molar volume than calcite and therefore, when pseudomorphic gypsum after calcite is packed in a smaller original volume resulting in cracking and consequent erosion problems. The produced barite has much less molar volume than gypsum and if it replaces gypsum it is expected to increase the porosity of the new surface, creating centers of weakness for further natural corrosion. What is the opinion of the authors on this? In the real monuments, it is common for the sulphated surfaces to be dirty because they adsorb PM or other pollutants. What are the expected behaviours of these surfaces after the treatment and the production of barite? The molar volume is smaller, and therefore is it expected these "specks of dirt" to move somewhere due to pressure release in the new mineral? I see in Fig. 5 that the reaction products include witherite(?) as well. The authors do not discuss anything about this carbonate phase.

The manuscript uses a very loose linguistic style and in some places, it tends to be out of the limits of what scientifically acceptable is. Both language and scientific styling require significant polishing.

The authors use some SEM images to support their findings. However, all images in Fig 2 (b, c) and 7 (b, c) are not acceptable as they do not show anything and do not support the findings of the authors. Maybe under higher magnifications, some features would be more evident. In addition, some expressions such as more solid or more durable cannot be accepted and definitely not using these images.

I have several specific comments in the annotated file, which is attached herewith. Hopefully, my comments will be beneficial for the authors.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A Novel Protection Method for the Carbonate Stone Relics with  Gypsum Weathering Crust

 

Manuscript Number:

In the present paper, the authors provide an experimental investigation of the Influence of the methanol solution of barium hydroxide-urea and water for providing protective layer in Carbonate Stone Relics with harmful gypsum weathering crust.  However, the paper requires some major improvement before it can be recommended for publication, it is proposed to re-submit a thoroughly revised version of the manuscript, considering the following comments.

 

1.     Overall recommendation should be reported in one sentence at the end of the abstract 2.     The authors should overview the recent progress made in the relevant area in the past two years or so.  Some suggested referessss are: ·        https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11010037 ·        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01318 ·        etc. 3.     Emphasizing the importance of research in the  introduction 4.     The paper is well written and it is easy to follow, only the authors need to go thoroughly revised version to correct the typo mistake.

 

5.     Author should highlight the assumptions and limitations and future research direction of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed almost all my comments, but are still some minor changes required:

1. Subsection 3.1. -Please rename into Morphological and chemical characterization

2. As I said previously: Please add figures labels to highlight the interest zone for the reader, for figures 2 and 7, see an example https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2019.108834

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors Dear Editors

Thank you for your responses.

The authors have addressed most of my concerns very satisfactorily and I believe the article has improved a lot. There are some minor issues to be corrected, which I list below. Although I am not a native English speaker I believe that the manuscript will be largely benefited by a good linguistic polishing, but the Editor can further decide on this.

Line 41: I suggest replacing "high" with "higher"

LIne 42: omit apostrophe after its

Line 48: After Liu et al., numbering is required

Captions of Figs 2 and 7: Please describe panels d, e and f

 

Best regards

Basilios Tsikouras

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed most of the comments. The paper can be recommended for publication 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be published in the present form

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for addressing the comments

Warm wishes

Basilios Tsikouras