Optimizing Experimental Immersion Protocol for SEBS Coating Formation on Copper Surfaces Using Response Surface Methodology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The level of English should be further improved. For example, 1. In Abstract part, (1) “Polystyrene-block-poly (ethylene-ran-butylene)-block-polystyrene (SEBS) was successfully deposited on the copper surface with an optimal conditions (changing into “an optimal condition”) of immersion protocol”. (2) The sentence of “Response surface methodology (RSM), particularly Box-Behnken Design (BBD), studied the combination of three environmental factors that minimize corrosion rate (CR), evaluated by voltammetry around the open circuit potential (OCP)” should be changed into “Response surface methodology (RSM), particularly Box-Behnken Design (BBD), was used to study the combination of three environmental factors that minimize corrosion rate (CR), evaluated by voltammetry around the open circuit potential (OCP)” . (3) “The empirical model result was confirmed by studying the electrochemical behaviour of the SEBS coating copper (changing into “on copper”) under optimal conditions (Cu-SEBS-Opt-Cond) exposed in a 3 wt% NaCl solution”.

2. In line 110 of Page 3, “This experimental procedure was repeated for each electrochemical corrosion test conducted”.

The level of English should be further improved. For example, 1. In Abstract part, (1) “Polystyrene-block-poly (ethylene-ran-butylene)-block-polystyrene (SEBS) was successfully deposited on the copper surface with an optimal conditions (changing into “an optimal condition”) of immersion protocol”. (2) The sentence of “Response surface methodology (RSM), particularly Box-Behnken Design (BBD), studied the combination of three environmental factors that minimize corrosion rate (CR), evaluated by voltammetry around the open circuit potential (OCP)” should be changed into “Response surface methodology (RSM), particularly Box-Behnken Design (BBD), was used to study the combination of three environmental factors that minimize corrosion rate (CR), evaluated by voltammetry around the open circuit potential (OCP)” . (3) “The empirical model result was confirmed by studying the electrochemical behaviour of the SEBS coating copper (changing into “on copper”) under optimal conditions (Cu-SEBS-Opt-Cond) exposed in a 3 wt% NaCl solution”.

2. In line 110 of Page 3, “This experimental procedure was repeated for each electrochemical corrosion test conducted”.

Author Response

Sfax, September,12^th, 2023

  We agree with the Editorial office as well as the Reviewers about all the suggestions mentioned. We would like to thank the reviewers for these constrictive and interesting remarks.  All the comments were taken in to account.

Please find the revised manuscript, on the web, which takes in to account all the mentioned comments.                                     

According to reviewer #1:

The level of English should be further improved. For example, 1. In Abstract part, (1) “Polystyrene-block-poly (ethylene-ran-butylene)-block-polystyrene (SEBS) was successfully deposited on the copper surface with an optimal conditions (changing into “an optimal condition”) of immersion protocol”. (2) The sentence of “Response surface methodology (RSM), particularly Box-Behnken Design (BBD), studied the combination of three environmental factors that minimize corrosion rate (CR), evaluated by voltammetry around the open circuit potential (OCP)” should be changed into “Response surface methodology (RSM), particularly Box-Behnken Design (BBD), was used to study the combination of three environmental factors that minimize corrosion rate (CR), evaluated by voltammetry around the open circuit potential (OCP)” . (3) “The empirical model result was confirmed by studying the electrochemical behaviour of the SEBS coating copper (changing into “on copper”) under optimal conditions (Cu-SEBS-Opt-Cond) exposed in a 3 wt% NaCl solution”.

2. In line 110 of Page 3, “This experimental procedure was repeated for each electrochemical corrosion test conducted”.

• We corrected all these errors
• As recommended by the reviewer all the manuscript has been revised by an English professor speaker (See the Acknowledgements).
• All the English grammar correction have been made in red, in order to make the final revision easier.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The article is devoted to the study of the applicability of organic coatings as protective coatings against corrosion. In general, this line of research is very promising and has great practical significance, as it is associated with the development of methods for protecting materials and increasing their stability, as well as fundamental importance associated with the study of corrosion mechanisms and their rate of occurrence. The presented research results are very promising and significant not only for a narrow circle of specialists in this field, but also for a wide range of researchers involved in the study of the applicability of various coatings as basic materials. The presented article corresponds to the subject of the declared journal and can be further considered for the possibility of publishing it after the authors answer a number of questions that the reviewer had when reading it.

1. The authors should explain the reasons for choosing 3% NaCl as a model solution, which is the most common solution for modeling corrosion processes. In the case of testing new types of coatings, it would be interesting to evaluate their resistance to more severe or aggressive solutions.

2. The described corrosion mechanisms imply the formation of oxide and hydroxide inclusions, however, the authors should reflect the presence of these types of inclusions in previously observed corrosion products in similar experiments.

3. When describing the mechanisms of corrosion, the authors should pay attention to the influence of the occurrence of chemical reaction products on the change in the corrosion rate with increasing testing time.

4. If possible, the authors should provide the results of morphological features and their changes during corrosion tests, as they will allow to establish what type of corrosion was observed in the samples.

5. In the last paragraph before the conclusion, the authors mention that there are many more factors influencing corrosion processes, they should provide more information about this in the description.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the remarks about our manuscript entitled " Optimizing experimental immersion protocol for SEBS coating formation on copper surfaces using response surface methodology ” submitted to Coatings.

            We agree with the Editorial office as well as the Reviewers about all the suggestions mentioned. We would like to thank the reviewers for these constrictive and interesting remarks.  All the comments were taken in to account.

Please find the revised manuscript, on the web, which takes in to account all the mentioned comments.                                                                  

Note:

• All the corrections in the revised manuscript have been made in red, in order to make the final revision easier.

According to reviewer #2:

Q.1.

The authors should explain the reasons for choosing 3% NaCl as a model solution, which is the most common solution for modeling corrosion processes. In the case of testing new types of coatings, it would be interesting to evaluate their resistance to more severe or aggressive solutions.

R.1.

We choose to used 3% as a model solution, which is the most common solution for modeling corrosion processes. As you know, seawater contains 3% salt by weight.

Q.2.

The described corrosion mechanisms imply the formation of oxide and hydroxide inclusions, however, the authors should reflect the presence of these types of inclusions in previously observed corrosion products in similar experiments.

Q.3.

When describing the mechanisms of corrosion, the authors should pay attention to the influence of the occurrence of chemical reaction products on the change in the corrosion rate with increasing testing time.

R.2. & R.3.

This study was not carried out due to the lack of these techniques in our laboratory.  Another researcher, who has just started his thesis, may have this possibility (after collaboration) which will be the subject of another article that will study the corrosion mechanisms of copper-coated SEBS in more severe or aggressive solutions than NaCl 3%.

Q.4.

If possible, the authors should provide the results of morphological features and their changes during corrosion tests, as they will allow to establish what type of corrosion was observed in the samples.

R.4.

This study was not carried out due to the lack of these techniques in our laboratory. This is a very good idea for the next work, after having collaborated with other laboratories.

Q.5.

In the last paragraph before the conclusion, the authors mention that there are many more factors influencing corrosion processes, they should provide more information about this in the description.

R.5.

According to the reviewer's recommendation, the last paragraph before the conclusion was revised, and they are now described correctly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper has an adequate scope, considering the aims and scope of the Journal.

The authors present an interesting work on a recent development of a  dip-coating SEBS polymer film on copper, investigated by an experimental design (surface Response Surface Methodology RSM) and a statistical significance of the model (ANOVA test) for parameter sensitivity.

It is claimed that the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy tests confirmed the results. 

However, the model calibration and in particular the validation seems vague.

Also, statistical measurement uncertianties are largely missing.

Thus, in the reviewer's opinion, this is a relevant work, which provides interesting findings, that deserves to be shared with the scientific community. However, and in contrast to the extensive scientific efforts, the presentation of the manuscript does not comply with the standards of a publication. Therefore, the reviewer suggests the authors to prepare a corrected version by carrying out an extensive edition based on the recommendations provided below. The following suggestions and comments should be taken into account before accepting the article for publication:

1.  Details on measurement uncertianty (repeatibility) is largery missing. Please show the scatters all presented experimental results. This applies to Figures (via error bars) and also in the related Tables (by adding the +/- variabilities).

2. Prospects, challenges, future work, limitations, etc. must be discussed in more detail.

3. Please also add future research steps which will follow this work.

4. Use of many abbreviations makes difficult to follow the text.

Please provide a table listing all abbreviations and parameters.

5. Building (selection) and in particular Validation of the model seems poor. Typicaly, the empirical model predictions should be clearly evaluated/validated by measurement results. Calibration of the model should be discussed in detail.

The appropriate training (calibration) and validation (no fiting) sets should commonly employ a cross-validation method! 

The cross-validation method consisted of validating the 

model architecture and parameters, even several times (in machine learning up to 20!),  using random selection of a different sections of data sets, as a ~20% generalisation (validation) set, and not only for one or limited sets like in this manuscript. For each random selection of the data the training misprediction rate and the validation misprediction rate should be reported, and giving range from x% to y% (for training) and from z% to q% (for validation), respectively. 

Based on such cross-validation method the empirical model with the most frequent value of misprediction rate could be taken as the model presented in the paper. The standard deviation for training and validation misprediction should be reported. Low dispersion should validate the selected model. 

English check after major revision required.

Author Response                                                                                                                                                                     

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the remarks about our manuscript entitled " Optimizing experimental immersion protocol for SEBS coating formation on copper surfaces using response surface methodology ” submitted to Coatings.

            We agree with the Editorial office as well as the Reviewers about all the suggestions mentioned. We would like to thank the reviewers for these constrictive and interesting remarks.  All the comments were taken in to account.

Please find the revised manuscript, on the web, which takes in to account all the mentioned comments.                                                                       

Note:

• All the corrections in the revised manuscript have been made in red, in order to make the final revision easier.

According to reviewer #3:

Q.1.

Details on measurement uncertianty (repeatibility) is largery missing. Please show the scatters all presented experimental results. This applies to Figures (via error bars) and also in the related Tables (by adding the +/- variabilities).

R.1.

As suggested by the reviewer, the statistical scattering of experimental parameters was added.

Q.2.

Prospects, challenges, future work, limitations, etc. must be discussed in more detail.

Q.3.

Please also add future research steps which will follow this work.

R.2. & R.3.

According to the reviewer's recommendation, the last paragraph before the conclusion was revised, and the prospects, challenges, future work, limitations, also future research steps that will follow this work were added.

Q.4.

Use of many abbreviations makes difficult to follow the text. Please provide a table listing all abbreviations and parameters.

R.4.

As recommended by the reviewer, a table listing all abbreviations and parameters was added.

Q.5.

Building (selection) and in particular Validation of the model seems poor. Typicaly, the empirical model predictions should be clearly evaluated/validated by measurement results. Calibration of the model should be discussed in detail.

The appropriate training (calibration) and validation (no fiting) sets should commonly employ a cross-validation method! 

The cross-validation method consisted of validating the 

model architecture and parameters, even several times (in machine learning up to 20!), using random selection of a different sections of data sets, as a ~20% generalisation (validation) set, and not only for one or limited sets like in this manuscript. For each random selection of the data the training misprediction rate and the validation misprediction rate should be reported, and giving range from x% to y% (for training) and from z% to q% (for validation), respectively. 

Based on such cross-validation method the empirical model with the most frequent value of misprediction rate could be taken as the model presented in the paper. The standard deviation for training and validation misprediction should be reported. Low dispersion should validate the selected model. 

R.5.

We would to thank the reviewer for this information on the cross-validation method. The proposed method is very interesting to validate the model architecture and parameters, even several times (in machine learning up to 20!), using a random selection of different sections of data sets, as a ~20% generalisation (validation) set.

This study was not carried out due to the little information on the cross-validation method. We are used to working with the response surface and experimentally validating the model. We asked the researcher to do training on the method as she already did on the experimental design and the response surface. So, in future work, we will apply the cross-validation method.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper needs a very serious, deep mandatory revision.

The described dip-coating process crucially depends on the parameters of dip-coating, which are not specified in the paper? What was the velocity of the process? See:

Wilson, S.D.R. 1982. The drag-out problem in film coating theory. Journal of Engineering Mathematics 16 (3): 209–221.

Rodríguez-Hernández, J., Bormashenko, E. (2020). Methodologies Involved in Manufacturing Self-Assembled Breath-Figures Patterns: Drop-Casting and Spin- and Dip-Coating – Characterization of Microporous Surfaces. In: Breath Figures . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51136-4_4 

De Gennes, P.-G., F. Brochard-Wyart, and D. Quéré. 2013. Capillarity and wetting phenomena: Drops, bubbles, pearls, waves. Springer Science & Business Media.

The process should be described in detail in a proper way.

2. Scheme of the process definitely should be supplied.

3. Statistical scattering of experimental parameters is not supplied in Tables 2-3. This is a very bad methodological mistake.

English should be deeply edited.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the remarks about our manuscript entitled " Optimizing experimental immersion protocol for SEBS coating formation on copper surfaces using response surface methodology ” submitted to Coatings.

            We agree with the Editorial office as well as the Reviewers about all the suggestions mentioned. We would like to thank the reviewers for these constrictive and interesting remarks.  All the comments were taken in to account.

Please find the revised manuscript, on the web, which takes in to account all the mentioned comments.

 Note:

• All the corrections in the revised manuscript have been made in red, in order to make the final revision easier.

According to reviewer #4:

The described dip-coating process crucially depends on the parameters of dip-coating, which are not specified in the paper? What was the velocity of the process? See:

Wilson, S.D.R. 1982. The drag-out problem in film coating theory. Journal of Engineering Mathematics 16 (3): 209–221.

Rodríguez-Hernández, J., Bormashenko, E. (2020). Methodologies Involved in Manufacturing Self-Assembled Breath-Figures Patterns: Drop-Casting and Spin- and Dip-Coating – Characterization of Microporous Surfaces. In: Breath Figures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51136-4_4 

De Gennes, P.-G., F. Brochard-Wyart, and D. Quéré. 2013. Capillarity and wetting phenomena: Drops, bubbles, pearls, waves. Springer Science & Business Media.

The process should be described in detail in a proper way.

• We would to thanks the reviewer for this excellent information. The protocol applied in this work is a simple immersion (without machine) and no dip-coating process. Therefore, we have rectified the title and revised the section of Preparation of SEBS-coated copper electrodes and they are now described correctly.

2. Scheme of the process definitely should be supplied.

• As recommended by the reviewer, the schema of the process was added to the manuscript (See Figure 1).

3. Statistical scattering of experimental parameters is not supplied in Tables 2-3. This is a very bad methodological mistake.

• As suggested by the reviewer, the statistical scattering of experimental parameters was added.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors answered all the questions posed, the article can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The revised version is publishable.

English is OK.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: coatings-2439146 (Report)

In the present work, the authors reported the optimization of the experimental protocol to successfully obtain the "best" SEBS film. This work seemed to me very interesting and complementary to their previous study (cited in Ref. 10: Masmoudi, F.; Jedidi, I.; Amor, Y.B.; Masmoudi, M. ChemistrySelect 2023, 8, 406.doi.e202202608.). Namely that the electrochemical behavior of SEBS as a protective coating of metals under aggressive solutions has rarely been addressed in the literature. In addition, the experimental design of the experiments allows the efficient collection of data, gives the chance to detect effects, and tests hypotheses that answer their research questions (lowest corrosion rate). The authors have provided a satisfactory manuscript with conclusions consistent with the major information provided in their studies. The references are good and appropriate for the present topic. on this basis I give a favorable opinion for the publication of this work with some comments to improve it

Comments for authors:

1/

·         Page 1, line 11:  use “3 wt % NaCl solution” instead of NaCl 3 % solution (like line 14).

         (Likewise for the lines: 47, 134, 242)

·         Page 1, line 17:  you add (CR) after corrosion rate and you remove this from line 19

·         Page 3, line 132: change "Sutured Calomel Electrode " for "saturated calomel electrode" and add (SCE) after this.

·         Page 3, Table 1: immersion 2: 30 It’s not the low level?

·         Page 4, line 144, you provide the values of β_a and β_c or you remove “Tafel coefficients (β_a and β_c)”

·         Page 5, line 176: change "C2" for "C²".

·         Page 6, line 179: change "R²≥0.80" for "R² ≥ 0.80" (enhance space)

·         Page 9, line 251: change “Bare Copper” to “bare copper” (like in line 253). (Likewise for lines: 277, 282, 301, 316, 344)

·         Page 9, line 256: the font size is great.

·         Page 10, line 286 : in “0.015m A cm^-2” add space “0.015 m A cm^-2”

·         Page 11, figure 7, remove Bare copper from this figure.  

·         Page 13, line 350: in “58375W” add space “58375 W”

2/

·         According to Figure 5 the behavior of the two types of copper is similar but there is a large shift in the electrochemical response; Can you explain this behavior well? (it's very interesting as a result. same remark for figure 6!!

·         In Figure 8 you could give an inset to better show the region [0-500] Wcm² to get an idea about the behavior of bare-Cu

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the revised manuscript, on the web, which takes in to account all the mentioned comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

 This paper (coatings-2439146) systematically evaluates the effects of Polystyrene-block-poly (ethylene-ran-butylene)-block-polystyrene)(SEBS) ratio and two-immersion time on the anticorrosive behavior of copper in 3 wt % NaCl solution to determine the best conditions to produce a protective SEBS film on the copper surface. The experimental result indicated that when the optimized parameters were found to be a 2.17% of SEBS ratio, 20 min of immersion 1, and 21 min of immersion 2, the SEBS-coated copper sample showed better corrosion resistance. Before it can be further considered, some shortcomings should be addressed. In general, this manuscript is very meaningful and can be published.

1.     Figure quality needs to be improved, eg., Fig. 9 (Rct?)

2.     In Nyquist plots, the scale of the horizontal and vertical axis should be consistent to present the true trend of the Nyquist curve. The units should maintain the same writing format (Re (Z)/ Ω cm² and -Im (Z) Ω cm²??), and the typical frequency values need to be marked to the curve.

3.     As shown in the Polarization curve (Fig. 5), the corrosion potential (Ecorr) of the bare copper sample tested by the author was about -0.1~ 0.2 V/SCE, while the standard potential of copper was + 0.342V. Please explain.

no comments

Author Response

Please find the revised manuscript, on the web, which takes in to account all the mentioned comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

After conducting a thorough review of the submitted work, it is considered that the work cannot be published in its current form. The authors must solve the following minor revisions.

The DOI reference: 10.1080/19648189.2023.2190789, is helpful to solve the introduction.

  Page 2. Line 53. Experimtnal - error

What is RSM? the acronym is not described

Performing physicochemical analyzes is of great help to solve electrochemical experiments, SEM-EDS, XRD.

No comments

Author Response

Please find the revised manuscript, on the web, which takes in to account all the mentioned comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In this study, RSM was used as an optimization method to find the optimal conditions to evaluate the effects of SEBS ratio and two-immersion time on the anticorrosive behaviour of copper in 3 wt % NaCl solution. This study achieves good originality but is insufficient for acceptance in as-received form. I think that this study should be improved in these aspects:

1. More information about the used copper substrate, tools or chemicals such as manufacturer, country, and chemical compositions needs to be provided.

2. The potentiodynamic polarization curves and the electrochemical impedance part should be discussed in more depth. Authors should add some very recent works published on this area, for example, J.Qin, X.T. Shi, H.Y. Li, R.F. Zhao, G.Q. Li, S.F. Zhang, L.Y. Ding, X.J. Cui, Y.Zhao, R.F. Zhang, Performance and failure process of green recycling solutions for preparing high degradation resistance coating on biomedical magnesium alloys, Green Chem. 24 (2022) 8113-8130; Yongjun Zhang, Xianlong Shen. Facile fabrication of robust superhydrophobic coating for enhanced corrosion protection on AZ91 magnesium alloy by electroless Ni-B/GO plating. Surface and Coatings Technology, 2023, 455(25): 129213.

3. In some part of this study, one paragraph only includes three or two sentences, which should be revised. Each paragraph should have certain length.

4. The meaning of R_f in Table 3 should be further explained. In addition, the optimized parameters were found in this study to be a 2.17% of SEBS ratio, 20 min of immersion 1, and 21 min of immersion 2. The underlying reason should be further discussed by coating surface characteristics (surface morphology, thickness, bonding strength…) or electrochemical results.

5. The level of English should be further improved. For example, (a) the sentence of “Research used natural and synthetic polymers to protect metals from corrosion instead of toxic inorganic and organic corrosion inhibitors” should be changed into “Research used natural and synthetic polymers instead of toxic inorganic and organic corrosion inhibitors to protect metals from corrosion”. (b) “The second region emanates from the formation of into an insoluble film CuCl (film) (Equation (4))”.

In this study, RSM was used as an optimization method to find the optimal conditions to evaluate the effects of SEBS ratio and two-immersion time on the anticorrosive behaviour of copper in 3 wt % NaCl solution. This study achieves good originality but is insufficient for acceptance in as-received form. I think that this study should be improved in these aspects:

1. More information about the used copper substrate, tools or chemicals such as manufacturer, country, and chemical compositions needs to be provided.

2. The potentiodynamic polarization curves and the electrochemical impedance part should be discussed in more depth. Authors should add some very recent works published on this area, for example, J.Qin, X.T. Shi, H.Y. Li, R.F. Zhao, G.Q. Li, S.F. Zhang, L.Y. Ding, X.J. Cui, Y.Zhao, R.F. Zhang, Performance and failure process of green recycling solutions for preparing high degradation resistance coating on biomedical magnesium alloys, Green Chem. 24 (2022) 8113-8130; Yongjun Zhang, Xianlong Shen. Facile fabrication of robust superhydrophobic coating for enhanced corrosion protection on AZ91 magnesium alloy by electroless Ni-B/GO plating. Surface and Coatings Technology, 2023, 455(25): 129213.

3. In some part of this study, one paragraph only includes three or two sentences, which should be revised. Each paragraph should have certain length.

4. The meaning of R_f in Table 3 should be further explained. In addition, the optimized parameters were found in this study to be a 2.17% of SEBS ratio, 20 min of immersion 1, and 21 min of immersion 2. The underlying reason should be further discussed by coating surface characteristics (surface morphology, thickness, bonding strength…) or electrochemical results.

5. The level of English should be further improved. For example, (a) the sentence of “Research used natural and synthetic polymers to protect metals from corrosion instead of toxic inorganic and organic corrosion inhibitors” should be changed into “Research used natural and synthetic polymers instead of toxic inorganic and organic corrosion inhibitors to protect metals from corrosion”. (b) “The second region emanates from the formation of into an insoluble film CuCl (film) (Equation (4))”.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We agree with the Editorial office as well as the Reviewers about all the suggestions mentioned. We would like to thank the reviewers for these constrictive and interesting remarks.  All the comments were taken in to account.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

During revising the manuscript, all points raised by me are suitably addressed. I recommend its acceptance for publication after the following respects have been revised:

1. The level of English should be further improved. For example, (1). The sentence of “Coating technologies are widely used in industrial applications because of their exceptional properties such as degradation resistance wear and corrosion resistance and hardness [4,5]” should be changed into “Coating technologies are widely used in industrial applications because of their exceptional properties such as degradation and wear resistance, and hardness [4,5]”. (2). “SEBS is characterized by their (changing into “its”) elasticity, versatility in processing, thermo-plasticity, thermo-oxidative stability, ultraviolet resistance, high service temperature, good low-temperature properties design, recyclability, manufacturing it at lower cost (changing into “lower manufacturing cost”)”.

2. In general, some symbols for electrochemical results such as “R” and “Q” in “Rs”, “Rct”, “Qdl” and “Qf” …should be italicized.

During revising the manuscript, all points raised by me are suitably addressed. I recommend its acceptance for publication after the following respects have been revised:

1. The level of English should be further improved. For example, (1). The sentence of “Coating technologies are widely used in industrial applications because of their exceptional properties such as degradation resistance wear and corrosion resistance and hardness [4,5]” should be changed into “Coating technologies are widely used in industrial applications because of their exceptional properties such as degradation and wear resistance, and hardness [4,5]”. (2). “SEBS is characterized by their (changing into “its”) elasticity, versatility in processing, thermo-plasticity, thermo-oxidative stability, ultraviolet resistance, high service temperature, good low-temperature properties design, recyclability, manufacturing it at lower cost (changing into “lower manufacturing cost”)”.

2. In general, some symbols for electrochemical results such as “R” and “Q” in “Rs”, “Rct”, “Qdl” and “Qf” …should be italicized.

Author Response

Dear

We agree with the Editorial office as well as the Reviewer about all the suggestions mentioned. 

Cordialy 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf