Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov 1,
  • Andrey Ashotovich Nagdalian 1,2,* and
  • Mohammad Ali Shariati 7
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Violeta Purcar Reviewer 2: Tao-Hsing Chen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-          English improvement is required. Some examples but not all are as the following:

·         In all manuscript, modify “oxy-ethylidendiphosphonic acid” with “oxy-ethylidene diphosphonic acid” or include the correct name for this reactive.

·         modify “ml” with “mL”

·         modify “value = 5.8± 0.2” with “value = 5.8 ± 0.2” (line 429

-          At Introduction, compare the method with other methods to highlight the chosen method.

-          Correct the References using the Guide of the Journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are grateful that you provided us the opportunity to revise this manuscript and would like to thank you for their valuable and constructive comments, which have helped us to improve the overall quality of this manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in response to your comments and we outline these revisions below. The corresponding changes have been track changes in the revised manuscript. We hope that these revisions satisfy your comments and look forward to your favorable response.

English improvement is required. Some examples but not all are as the following:

  • In all manuscript, modify "oxy-ethylidendiphosphonic acid" with "oxy-ethylidene diphosphonic acid" or include the correct name for this reactive.

Response: We have revised as per your comments. We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion, and we appreciate their critical evaluation of the manuscript. Typographical errors were corrected, and language revisions have been made.

  • modify “ml” with “mL”

Response: Thanks. Corrected.

  • modify “value = 5.8± 0.2” with “value = 5.8 ± 0.2” (line 429)

Response: Thanks. Corrected.

-          At Introduction, compare the method with other methods to highlight the chosen method.

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestions. We added a paragraph describing the disadvantages of modern methods of corrosion removal from car paintworks.

-          Correct the References using the Guide of the Journal.

Response: Thank you for the valuable comments. As per suggestions, we have formatted the references.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigates the tool removing metal inclusions from the surface of paint and varnish car. In the review, I think this paper should make some revisions.

1.In the figure 9, the description of y-axis has some strange,. The author marks "D", what is D?

2.Figure 10 has poor resolution, ad the description of Figure 10b on y-axis also has wrong typing. Figure 11 also has the same problem with figure10.

3. The microbar for figure 15 and 24 are marked as "30MKN" and 80MKN. What is "MKN"?

4. Furthermore, the  figure 23 has poor presentation. The author should mark the change position on each figure,

5. In the figure stage 1, the author can present other car to identify the effect.

Author Response

We are grateful that you provided us the opportunity to revise this manuscript and would like to thank you for their valuable and constructive comments, which have helped us to improve the overall quality of this manuscript. We have revised the manuscript in response to your comments and we outline these revisions below. The corresponding changes have been track changes in the revised manuscript. We hope that these revisions satisfy your comments and look forward to your favorable response.

The paper investigates the tool removing metal inclusions from the surface of paint and varnish car. In the review, I think this paper should make some revisions.

1.In the figure 9, the description of y-axis has some strange,. The author marks "D", what is D?

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestions. The axis was changed. D is the optical density of the test sample. For the same reason, we changed figures 2 and 3.

2.Figure 10 has poor resolution, ad the description of Figure 10b on y-axis also has wrong typing. Figure 11 also has the same problem with figure10.

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestions. Increased the resolution of figures 10 and 11, and also changed their axes.

  1. The microbar for figure 15 and 24 are marked as "30MKN" and 80MKN. What is "MKN"?

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestions. The scale was changed in Figures 15 and 24. The unit of measurement of magnitude is micrometers.

  1. Furthermore, the  figure 23 has poor presentation. The author should mark the change position on each figure,

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestions. In Fig. 23, we decided to add a scale with a distance value. Thanks to this scale, you can determine the length of the shades that are shown in the figure.

  1. In the figure stage 1, the author can present other car to identify the effect.

Response: Thank you for the valuable suggestions. We agree with the recommendation. We represented in the figure the private car of one of the authors of the manuscript. For other car photos, according to our contract, we need to get access from the detailing center "Pride-Auto" Inc. (Stavropol, Russia) and it is not available at the moment till the center gets a patent license for the developed tool. All presented in the manuscript information is allowed by detailing center "Pride-Auto" Inc. to be published publicly.

To solve your note, we decided to remove the last figure from the main document of the manuscript and create a supplementary file where interested readers will see the visual effect of our tool on BMW X6.