Research on Nano-Titanium Modified Phenolic Resin Coating and Corrosion Resistance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper shows nano-titanium-modified phenolic resin may prevent corrosion. There are several things that could be done to improve the paper.

1. Please add schematic illustration for sample preparation.

2. The morphology of Figure 1 b and d looks similar. Please provide EDS image for Figure 1 as well. 

3. In Figure 3, the intensity of the spectra especially for 5% Ti_PF is quite different. Please retake the characterization to make sure.

4. Please explain the Raman spectrum in detail.

5. Please give the UV-vis result for all samples. Make sure it has the same thickness.

6. Please add electrochemical characterization for corrosion resistance

7. It would be best if you could provide a tribological test, scratch resistance and so on.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer：Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      The authors are encouraged to consistently use proper subscript notation for TiO₂ and SiO₂ throughout the manuscript.

2.      A minor typo has been spotted in the word 'Atmosphere' on line 121; correct this error for accuracy.

3.      If the authors assert that porosity significantly impacts corrosion, it would be valuable to include a discussion on the correlation between porosity and the roughness values of the coating.

4.      There are repeated words in lines 88-89 that should be edited for clarity and precision.

5.      The authors mention that the Ti-PF coating significantly improves corrosion behavior, especially at 4% concentration, citing pore size and uniform distribution. provide the specific pore size values for the Ti-PF coating to support this claim.

6.      The authors should include electrochemical corrosion tests to validate the corrosion resistance of the reported material.

7.      If 4% concentration is considered optimal, elucidate the underlying reaction mechanisms and provide details on how this assertion was confirmed experimentally.

8.      The UV-Vis plot needs clarification. Specify the region of interest where changes were observed and clarify the purpose of the UV-VIS study in the context of the research.

9.      The paper should provide information on the recommended exposure time required to achieve improved performance. This detail is crucial for readers to better understand the practical implications of the findings.

10.  The conclusion of the paper lacks clarity. It would be helpful to include information about the initial corrosion rate and how it changes after 768 hours of exposure to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the study's outcomes.

Should perform a thorough check of the manuscript for English grammar, repeated words, and sentence structure

Author Response

Dear reviewer: Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- Abstract. There is no clear definition of what this work is about. What issues are being discussed in this brief report? What theoretically and practically significant results are obtained based on this work? Therefore, the abstract requires changes and revisions to eliminate the abovementioned shortcomings.

- Typos and grammar errors are common in the manuscript. Many sentences are not understandable, some of which can be due to typos or grammar errors. About the manuscript, it is recommended to recheck the grammatical errors. Authors should pay more attention to singular/plural nouns. Also, they should control the spell check/ punctuation of words and sentences. In addition, spaces should be added between words and numbers. Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in the paper. Rechecking the grammatical errors or the subscripts, for example, SiO2 and TiO2, is recommended in the whole text.

- More literature should be cited in the Introduction, for example, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2023.129814; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.05.026.

- In the introduction section, the authors do not provide any support from the literature for their idea. Please bold the novelty of this manuscript. 

- What standards and how much time are used for salt spray testing?

- Please put a scale bar on Figs. 6 and 7. 

- Why did the authors not perform Tafle and EIS measurements for corrosion studies?

- Coatings thickness and adhesion - does not seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the paper. Are these properties important?

Moderate editing of the English language is required!

Author Response

Dear reviewer: Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments

Author Response

Thank you very much, you have recognized our revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

the authors improve the manuscript on various aspects for the publication

Author Response

Thank you very much, you have recognized our revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has undergone some improvements following the revision based on the comments from the reviewer. However, there are still significant concerns that require clarification before it can be considered for publication:

1. The abstract section notes that the abbreviations SEM, EDS, and FTIR are not consistently defined upon their first occurrence. These abbreviations should be defined accordingly.

2. On page 3, in line 92, there is a mention of 'As illustrated in Figure 1.' It is unclear if this is a complete sentence or if additional context is needed.

3. The presentation of impedance data in the Nyquist plot is found to be incorrect. Specifically, the Z' and Z" axes on the Nyquist plot should have identical scales, and it is recommended to include characteristic frequencies on the diagrams. Additionally, Bode phase plots should be provided. Furthermore, the physical significance of the C values associated with each Q should be calculated and discussed.

4. The authors are encouraged to fit the EIS diagrams and obtain the equivalent circuit. The results of this analysis should be presented in a table, and a thorough discussion of each item should be provided.

5. Figure 11 lacks a scale bar for the images, and it is essential to include one for clarity.

6. The term 'adhesion test level' is mentioned, but its meaning is unclear. It appears to have been shown at 1 and 2 levels, but it is suggested that more information be provided about the adhesion test, possibly specifying whether it should be '1B' and '2B' and providing additional details.

7. Numerous typographical errors are present in the references section. It is strongly recommended to conduct a meticulous review to correct these errors. For example, please review references 10, 12, and 26.

In summary, while the manuscript has seen improvement after revisions, addressing these major concerns is essential for further publication consideration.

The authors should enhance the quality of English language usage in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：Please write down "Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx