Effect of hBN on Corrosion and Wear Performances of DC Electrodeposited NiW and NiW–SiC on Brass Substrates
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript details work involving the effect of hBN on the corrosion and wear behavior of electrodeposited coatings. They found that the addition of hBN and ceramic particles to NiW matrix significantly enhanced the wear resistance of the coatings. There is potential for publication in this journal, but I have several comments that I would like properly addressed first.
1. There is serious detail missing from the Methodology section on how the scanning transmission electron microscope, X-ray diffraction, and energy dispersive spectroscopy experiments were performed.
2. For the data corresponding to Figure 8, was there a significant shift of corrosion potentials towards nobler values? How do the authors know this?
3. From Figures 5 - 7, how did the authors determine that these surfaces are smooth? Perhaps use another description. Also, please describe the particles observed on the surface.
4. The authors may also consider performing size analysis on the particles on the sample surface.
5. In Figures 6(a) and 7(a)-(b), it is a good idea to mention what the box is in the figure caption.
6. In Figure 11, it may be better to lower the range of values for the y-axis to better show the data. It may also be better to plot the trendlines instead.
7. Please provide references for the equations used in the paper.
8. It may be better to normalize the intensity data in Figure 13. Also, why is the first peak in the X-ray diffraction patter for NiW (500 C) not labeled?
9. In the graphs with several decimal places, please use scientific notation.
10. Please make all paragraphs at least three sentences long.
11. In the conclusions section, please better describe how the work resulted in an advance.
12. Please spell out abbreviations in the manuscript such as hBN.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. They greatly helped us to improve the manuscript.
Comment 1:
There is serious detail missing from the Methodology section on how the scanning transmission electron microscope, X-ray diffraction, and energy dispersive spectroscopy experiments were performed
Answer: The reviewer suggestion was employed on page 5.
Comment 2:
For the data corresponding to Figure 8, was there a significant shift of corrosion potentials towards nobler values? How do the authors know this?
Answer: The significant shift was observed and the values of corrosion potentials were added to the text.
Comment 3:
From Figures 5-7, how did the authors determine that these surfaces are smooth? Perhaps use another description. Also, please describe the particles observed on the surface.
Answer: The reviewer suggestion was employed and another description was used. The particles were also described
Comment 4:
The authors may also consider performing size analysis on the particles on the sample surface.
Answer: The reviewer suggestion was employed and particle size for hBN and SiC particles were measured by imagej software and were added to the text.
Comment 5:
In Figures 6(a) and 7(a)-(b), it is a good idea to mention what the box is in the figure caption.
Answer: The reviewer suggestion was employed.
Comment 6:
In Figure 11, it may be better to lower the range of values for the y-axis to better show the data. It may also be better to plot the trendlines instead.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 7:
Please provide references for the equations used in the paper.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 8:
It may be better to normalize the intensity data in Figure 13. Also, why is the first peak in the X-ray diffraction patter for NiW (500 C) not labeled?
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 9:
In the graphs with several decimal places, please use scientific notation.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed and graphs were modified.
Comment 10:
Please make all paragraphs at least three sentences long.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 11:
In the conclusions section, please better describe how the work resulted in an advance.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 12:
Please spell out abbreviations in the manuscript such as hBN.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present manuscript, “Effect of hBN on corrosion and wear performances of DC electrodeposited NiW and NiW-SiC on brass substrates”, the corrosion and wear properties of electrodeposited NiW alloy include SiC/hBN/SiC-hBN were investigated via Pin-on-disk tests and Potentiodynamic polarization methods. The results show that incorporation of hBN and SiC ceramic particles within the NiW matrix enhanced the corrosion performance and wear resistance of the NiW coating. Overall, this is a promising work with applications. Thus, the reviewer suggests this manuscript to be published in Coatings after the authors can address the following issues:
1) It is not appropriate to use the SEM to evaluate the flatness of the sample surface because it is not very sensitive to unsharp undulations. The best practice is to use professional equipment, such as confocal profilometer, to determine the surface roughness of the sample.
2) Can any size of particles to be deposited be composited? Is there an optimal particle size for the suspension? How well do the particles bond to the substrate?
3) For anode materials, passivation is a phenomenon that is desired. The NiW-SiC-hBN coatings displayed active-passive transitions, there should be a more in-depth study or explanation for this.
4) According to Figure 13, some of the XRD curves do not have three strong peaks in the traditional sense, unless the deposited NiW has a significant meritocratic orientation, the <111> perpendicular to the surface, which requires more visual evidence, such as EBSD or TEM images.
5) Some minor errors:
Mang spaces are missing, e.g. Line 156, Line 166.
Some formatting needs to be adjusted, e.g. Line 10, Line 12
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. They greatly helped us to improve the manuscript.
Comment 1:
It is not appropriate to use the SEM to evaluate the flatness of the sample surface because it is not very sensitive to unsharp undulations. The best practice is to use professional equipment, such as confocal profilometer, to determine the surface roughness of the sample.
Answer: The reviewer suggestion was employed and another description was used.
Comment 2:
Can any size of particles to be deposited be composited? Is there an optimal particle size for the suspension? How well do the particles bond to the substrate?
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed on page 3 highlighted in red.
Comment 3:
For anode materials, passivation is a phenomenon that is desired. The NiW-SiC-hBN coatings displayed active-passive transitions, there should be a more in-depth study or explanation for this.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed on page 10.
Comment 4:
According to Figure 13, some of the XRD curves do not have three strong peaks in the traditional sense, unless the deposited NiW has a significant meritocratic orientation, the <111> perpendicular to the surface, which requires more visual evidence, such as EBSD or TEM images.
Answer: TEM images were taken from the surfaces and added to the article
Comment 5:
Some minor errors:
Many spaces are missing, e.g. Line 156, Line 166.
Some formatting needs to be adjusted, e.g. Line 10, Line 12
Answer: There reviewer comment was employed.
Reviewer 3 Report
11. In abstract please correct 10-6 to 10-6.
22. In introduction the first two paragraph have not any reference. Also the references start from number 2.
33. Page 2, in introduction please correct B4C to B4C.
44. The substrate was not mentioned in the introduction. Why the authors use brass as substrate? Please explain.
55. SiC specifications were not mentioned in the experimental section. How and how much was used in the electrolyte?
6. Since all the components must be soluble in the electrolyte bath, how was SiC and hBN used in the electrodeposition process?
7. In experimental section the condition of polarization and cyclic polarization were not mentioned.
8. Page 5, “Higher surface roughness may result in a lower contact area between two surfaces, minimizing the friction and adhesive wear” please check again. According some literatures such as : (J. Balaji, M.G. Sethuraman, Chitosan-doped-hybrid/TiO2 nanocomposite based solgel coating for the corrosion resistance of aluminum metal in 3.5% NaCl medium, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 104 (2017) 1730–1739) the lower roughness is true.
9. It is suggested that the Potentiodynamic polarization results be listed in a table instead of graphs.
10. Page 10, “This behavior is usually characteristics of materials that are susceptible to passivation or the materials that are not susceptible to pitting corrosion” On what basis is this sentence mentioned? Which references?
11. All experimental analyzes should be based on a series of references that the authors did not use in Potentiodynamic polarization, Cyclic polarization and XRD analyzes. Please revise again.
12. Table 2. Crystallite sizes of PRC deposited Ni, NiW, and NiW-SiC, in DC-NiW sample crystallite size unlike the other two samples an inconsistency is seen, so that, it decreases by 350 degrees and increases by 500 degrees. How do the authors justify this?
13. Page 8, “As well, formation of double layer of NiWO4 and SiO2 on coating surface when exposed to corrosive media” also in page 11” As well, presence of SiC particles in the NiW matrix will effectively reduce the contact between the sliding surfaces due to formation of stable SiO2” How SiC leads to the production of SiO2 while SiC is a hard material with high melting point and insoluble in water? Please explain.
14. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is also often used in corrosion studies. Please consider this test as well.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. They greatly helped us to improve the manuscript.
Comment 1:
In abstract please correct 10-6 to 10-6.
Answer: There reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 2:
In introduction the first two paragraph have not any reference. Also the references start from number 2.
Answer: There reviewer comment was employed and relevant references were added.
Comment 3:
Page 2, in introduction please correct B4C to B4C.
Answer: There reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 4:
The substrate was not mentioned in the introduction. Why the authors use brass as substrate? Please explain.
Answer: There reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 5:
SiC specifications were not mentioned in the experimental section. How and how much was used in the electrolyte?
Answer: There reviewer comment was employed on page 3.
Comment 6:
Since all the components must be soluble in the electrolyte bath, how was SiC and hBN used in the electrodeposition process?
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed on page 3 highlighted in red.
Comment 7:
In experimental section the condition of polarization and cyclic polarization were not mentioned.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed.
Comment 8:
Page 5, “Higher surface roughness may result in a lower contact area between two surfaces, minimizing the friction and adhesive wear” please check again. According some literatures such as: (J. Balaji, M.G. Sethuraman, Chitosan-doped-hybrid/TiO2 nanocomposite based solgel coating for the corrosion resistance of aluminum metal in 3.5% NaCl medium, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 104 (2017) 1730–1739) the lower roughness is true.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed and relevant references were added.
Comment 9:
It is suggested that the Potentiodynamic polarization results be listed in a table instead of graphs.
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed and table was added.
Comment 10:
Page 10, “This behavior is usually characteristics of materials that are susceptible to passivation or the materials that are not susceptible to pitting corrosion” On what basis is this sentence mentioned? Which references?
Answer: The reviewer comment was employed and the relevant references were added.
Comment 11:
All experimental analyzes should be based on a series of references that the authors did not use in Potentiodynamic polarization, Cyclic polarization and XRD analyzes. Please revise again.
Answer: Grain size, wear and corrosion performance of DC deposited NiW-SiC-hBN and NiW-hBN composite coatings were evaluated and compared to reference coatings such as DC deposited NiW and NiW-SiC coatings. It might be not a good comparison between these coatings and other coating materials in the literature since they are deposited from different electrodeposition baths with different chemistry and under different experimental conditions such as pH, temperature, and current density.
Comment 12:
Table 2. Crystallite sizes of DC deposited Ni, NiW, and NiW-SiC, in DC-NiW sample crystallite size unlike the other two samples an inconsistency is seen, so that, it decreases by 350 degrees and increases by 500 degrees. How do the authors justify this?
Answer: There reviewer comment was employed. There was a mistake in reporting the data.
Comment 13:
Page 8, “As well, formation of double layer of NiWO4 and SiO2 on coating surface when exposed to corrosive media” also in page 11” As well, presence of SiC particles in the NiW matrix will effectively reduce the contact between the sliding surfaces due to formation of stable SiO2” How SiC leads to the production of SiO2 while SiC is a hard material with high melting point and insoluble in water? Please explain.
Answer: There reviewer comment was employed and relevant references were added.
Comment 14:
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is also often used in corrosion studies. Please consider this test as well.
Answer: As reviewer suggests, EIS could also be used for corrosion analysis. We believe that we have enough data and analysis on corrosion behavior of the coatings in this research. Moreover, conducting EIS at this time is not feasible for us and we will consider for the upcoming articles.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have put in a good effort to properly address my comments, although I do have one comment before it can be accepted. Please fix Table 2 in the manuscript as it does not appear right.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors answered the issues and now the article can be published
