Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please address my comments listed in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for giving us the chance to revise our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to your comments and the itemized response is attached. The changes made were highlighted in yellow font. We now submit our revised manuscript for your kind re-consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper evaluate the passive film formation in steel substrate in chloride environment due to the addition of different types of rust inhibitors. For this purpose XPD and XRD analysis were reported.

Although the topic is compatible to the Journal scope and potentially interesting for the scientific community, as structured in the from a thorough revision and improvement is required before a suitable scientific soundness according to the journal requirements.

 

The introduction is too general and quite similar to a previous introduction published by the authors.

It is necessary to better clarify the improvement of knowledge of the paper compared to the literature , adding where possible the novelty on the approach that was proposed.

Details of the scientific strategy that oriented the research group toward the selected inhibitors configuration and mixture is also welcome. Sodium molybdate and benzotriazole (also in micture) are common inhibitors applied to study local corrosion resistance of steel alloys.

In the present form, the test samples section (3,1) it is unclear, without support of the scientific evidence and not give relevance to the discussion of results.

The experimental campaign was structured based on XPR and XRD, But, in my opinion it is mandatory to add SEM analysis to corroborate the results with morphological and EDS analysis. The morphology along top and cross-section view should give interesting information about the passive film formation.

Furthermore electrochemical tests (e.g. linear polarization tests, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy) will support the experimental evidenced better clarifying the contribute of the surface layers and interfaces. The coupling all of these technique, as example, could lead to a different scientific point of view than the literature, thus giving an added value to the research context in which the work is placed.

The section 3,4 is a relevant section of the paper that at the moment lacks in several parts. The addition of further, quantitative analyses to assess the corrosion resistance and inhibitor effectiveness is required.

 

I’m not native English but several part of the paper require a strong revision to increase its readability.

Author Response

Thanks for giving us the chance to revise our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to your comments and the itemized response is attached. The changes made were highlighted in yellow font. We now submit our revised manuscript for your kind re-consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the present paper, rust formation on a particular type of steel, typically employed with concrete, has been studied. Nevertheless, the topic appears interesting for the reader the presentation of methods and results it is very confused, therefore it is very challenging for the reader to have a clear idea of the methodology and consequent results. Some comments to improve the paper:

The abstract and Introduction must be improved by introducing more details related to the methods employed, for the first, and related to other studies cited from literature, for the latter. For example, in the abstract, it is not clear if sodium molybdate and other compounds are here investigated as rush inhibitor or other. In the introduction more numerical and precise details must be provided such as rush inhibitors already studied, or results in terms of corrosion properties obtained. 

In Table 1 also Fe % must be indicated, how these data have been measured, or what is their source? A chemical composition must indicate all the compounds until 100% 

Table 2 can be deleted, and this information can be included easily in one sentence into the text. 

Please rewrite the sentence "The solution was measured 500ml in test bottles" as it makes no sense. Also, the explanation of the rust inhibitors employed should be revised, maybe a table can help to explain this point. 

In table 3 what is "proportion"?  Proportion of what? In the same table, "rust inhibitors" is the composite rust inhibitors cited in the text? if yes, please correct, as the same expression must be used to avoid miss understanding of the content. 

Result and discussion section, please define better what is intended as "monthly observations". Please revise the grammar of the second sentence "the steels were immersed" to better clear the point. What is rust inhibitor "m" ? 

Avoid to write conclusion section point-by-point. 

In all the text, please avoid starting a new sentence with "And" as it make no sense

Author Response

Thanks for giving us the chance to revise our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to your comments and the itemized response is attached. The changes made were highlighted in yellow font. We now submit our revised manuscript for your kind re-consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled "Influence of rust inhibitor on microstructure of steel passive film in chloride concrete" presents an interesting experimental study conducted on the evaluation of the corrosion process of steel in different corrosive environments. However, the paper has a few issues that must be addressed. The paper needs minor revisions before it is processed further, some comments follow:

•    The introduction should be described accurately. Please avoid group citations in one phrase, such as [1-3], [4-6], [9-11], and [17-19]. Please discuss the highlights individually.
•    Subsection 2.1 – how was the preparation method established? Based on previous studies? The affirmation "the steels without a rust mark were wrapped with plastic wrap" is based on a visual inspection?
•    “Three steels were added to each test group." – Could the authors better explain this sentence. The idea is ambiguous. Do three steels mean three samples?
•    Table 1 – Please introduce Fe as a chemical element with "balance" for concentration.
•    XRD results  - the identification of peaks is questionable as the spectrum are very "noisy". Also, there are some clear peaks that were not considered (Fig. 8. D- the peak around 48 º - next to "4", etc.). Please process the data and extract a smoother spectrum to clearly evaluate the relevant peaks.

Author Response

Thanks for giving us the chance to revise our manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to your comments and the itemized response is attached. The changes made were highlighted in yellow font. We now submit our revised manuscript for your kind re-consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the authors accepted all the major comments and thereafter the paper is suitable for publication.