Study on Microstructure and Oxidation Resistance Mechanism of Y-Modified NiCrAlY Coating Prepared by Pack Cementation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted manuscript on “Study on microstructure and oxidation resistance mechanism of Y-modified NiCrAlY coating prepared by pack cementation” appears to an interesting work. However, there are few issues as listed below that need to be revised by the author(s) before any further recommendation –
1. Why hardness (nano or micro) of Y-modified NiCrAlY coating prepared by pack cementation been not evaluated?
2. Related to comment 1, the underlying microstructure mechanisms could be correlated better with oxidation resistance mechanisms.
3. In continuation to comment 2; based on the key findings from microstructural and hardness analysis, the conclusion section shall improve accordingly.
4. Conclusions need to be specific and generic rather than with only discussed numeric values as obtained from experimental work.
5. Add future recommendations for further investigation as well.
*Author(s) should highlight all the modifications carried out in the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Why hardness (nano or micro) of Y-modified NiCrAlY coating prepared by pack cementation been not evaluated?
Response 1: Hardness data of Y-modified NiCrAlY coating has been added to the manuscript (Page 3, Lines 149~152).
Point 2: Related to comment 1, the underlying microstructure mechanisms could be correlated better with oxidation resistance mechanisms.
Response 2: The effect of hardness on oxidation resistance of coating has been added (Page 10, Lines 360~364).
Point 3: In continuation to comment 2; based on the key findings from microstructural and hardness analysis, the conclusion section shall improve accordingly.
Response 3: The conclusion section has been improved accordingly.
Point 4: Conclusions need to be specific and generic rather than with only discussed numeric values as obtained from experimental work.
Response 4: Conclusions have been revised to specific.
Point 5: Add future recommendations for further investigation as well.
Response 5: Future recommendations for further investigation has been added.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have written a research article entitled “Study on Microstructure and Oxidation Resistance Mechanism of Y-modified NiCrAlY Coating Prepared by Pack Cementation”. The manuscript is quite interesting, well framed, and based on the Y-modified NiCrAlY coatings that were prepared on the surface of thermal sprayed NiCrAlY coatings by halide activated pack cementation technology. The results show that the oxidation resistance of Y-modified NiCrAlY coatings were improved significantly. When the oxidation temperature and time are 1100 °C and 100 h. Furthermore, the present work can provide a solution to improve the oxidation resistance of traditional MCrAlY coatings. The work reported in this manuscript is interesting and well-presented. The authors have described the concept to a greater extent but the manuscript still needs some Minor corrections before acceptance in Coatings.
I appreciate the author's effort in this good study. However, the following comments need to be addressed.
Comment 1: Grammatical/typographical error issues are so many there in the manuscript at several places also check superscripts and subscripts errors.
Comment 2: Improve the Schematic diagram (Figure 1) in the revised manuscript to attain a broad readership.
Comment 3: The introduction provided a good, generalized background of the topic that quickly gives the reader an appreciation. However, I think the authors just need to revise a bit, stating the hypothesis beyond the work.
Wu, Y. N., et al. "Improved oxidation resistance of NiCrAlY coatings." Materials Letters 57.16-17 (2003): 2404-2408.
Gong, X., et al. "Microstructure and oxidation behavior of NiCoCrAlY coating with different Sm2O3 concentration on TiAl alloy." Frontiers in Materials (2021): 270.
Comment 4: Include the all chemicals/materials details such as purity, manufacturer origin, etc.,
Comment 5: In section 3.1., compare and discuss the SEM analysis results with relevant studies.
Comment 6: Provide the phase compositions of the as-prepared NiCrAlY by performing an XRD analysis.
Comment 7: Overall, the “Discussion” section needs more comparative study. So please compare and discuss the obtained results with previous studies.
Comment 8: Please improve the conclusion section it looks too much lengthy. So it should be revised.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Grammatical/typographical error issues are so many there in the manuscript at several places also check superscripts and subscripts errors.
Response 1: Grammar/typesetting problems have been fixed in full manuscript.
Point 2: Improve the Schematic diagram (Figure 1) in the revised manuscript to attain a broad readership.
Response 2: The Schematic diagram (Figure 1) in the revised manuscript has been improved.
Point 3: The introduction provided a good, generalized background of the topic that quickly gives the reader an appreciation. However, I think the authors just need to revise a bit, stating the hypothesis beyond the work.
Response 3: The introduction has been improved.
Point 4: Include the all chemicals/materials details such as purity, manufacturer origin, etc.,
Response 4: All the chemicals/materials details such as purity, manufacturer origin, etc. have been added in the manuscript.
Point 5: In section 3.1., compare and discuss the SEM analysis results with relevant studies.
Response 5: The section 3.1. has been improved.
Point 6: Provide the phase compositions of the as-prepared NiCrAlY by performing an XRD analysis.
Response 6: The phase compositions of the as-prepared NiCrAlY by performing an XRD analysis has been provided.
Point 7: Overall, the “Discussion” section needs more comparative study. So please compare and discuss the obtained results with previous studies.
Response 7: The discussion section has been improved.
Point 8: Please improve the conclusion section it looks too much lengthy. So it should be revised.
Response 8: The conclusion section has been improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have done well.
