The Electrodeposition of Derivatives of Pyrrole and Thiophene on Brass Alloy in the Presence of Dodecane-1-Sulfonic Acid Sodium Salt in Acidic Medium and Its Anti-Corrosive Properties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article discusses the corrosion behavior of a N-methylpyrrole-sodium 1-dodecane sulfonate/poly 2-methythiophene coatings over brass electrodes. They report that the coatings provided a corrosion resistant layer. An interesting work that should be acceptable with a minor revision.
1. For the polarization curves, please refrain from using both the colors red and green in a graph.
2. Secondly, the authors may want to use varying line styles for the different graphs in their curves.
3. There are multiple figure 6's.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Thank you for your comments and corrections. The required revision was done thus:
- For the polarization curves, please refrain from using both the colors red and green in a graph.
Answer: all the required changes have been made.
- Secondly, the authors may want to use varying line styles for the different graphs in their curves.
Answer: all the required changes have been made.
- There are multiple figure 6's.
Answer: The mistake was corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this work, authors fabricated the copolymer based on N-methylpyrrole and N-methythiophene in the oxalic supporting electrolyte, which is employed as the efficient protection coating for brass in H2SO4 solution. Two conventional strategies were utilized to complete the coating deposition, from which the optimum electrodeposition procedure was established. Electrochemical and surface analyses were conducted to examine the anticorrosive property of the coating. In my opinion, although the concept of electrodeposited coating is not creative, this investigation is rich in data and well-organized. Thereby, this manuscript can be published after dealing with the issues tabulated as follows.
- In the Abstract, authors claimed that galvanostatic method was deployed to deposit the coatings. However, from the results in Figure 1, I think those are obtained in the potentiostatic (i.e., chronoamperometry) procedures. Figure 2 can be the galvanostatic procedure. Besides CV technology, three methods were employed, and thus the statement in Abstract section is not proper. Please check the item.
- The adhesive strength always bothers the electrodeposited strategy to fabricate conducting polymer coating. In the statement on the design of this study (Introduction section), authors emphasized the strong adhesion of the deposited coating. However, I cannot find the relevant characterizations and the detailed adhesion grade for different coatings on brass.
- For the Introduction section, several related studies especially on the corrosion of copper-based alloys (e.g., Corros. Sci., 2023, 212: 110957) and electropolymerized coatings should be involved to make a wider background coverage. In addition, the important role of counterions has also raised by authors; however, there is little introduction about their action mechanism in protecting the metals. Please re-organized the introduction part to elevate the scientific level.
- As known, electropolymerized coatings exhibit the electroactive property (from the electronic conductivity); however, from the results of electrochemical assays, only physical barrier effect is observed. How does the electroactivity work in the aspect of corrosion inhibition. Please make a clear discussion on it.
- Several characteristic peaks should be marked in FTIR spectra (Figure 4) for clarity. In the present form, I cannot easily distinguish the typical peak for the target coating.
- From Table 1, authors need to explain the relatively large difference in corrosion current density for the same coating obtained from different technologies.
- Authors failed to present the right form of EIS spectra (could refer to the standard presentation in Sustain. Chem. Pharm., 2022, 29: 100821), let alone the fitted parameters (I cannot see the fitted line in Figure 7 also). For instance, the scale of horizontal and vertical axis should be the same. The capacitive behaviors of different coated samples are quite abnormal, the optimum has the medium capacitive phenomenon. Why?
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I review the manuscript entitled “The Electrodeposition of Derivatives of Pyrrole and Thiophene on Brass Alloy in the Presence of Dodecane-1-Sulfonic Acid Sodium Salt in Acidic Medium and its Anticorrosive Properties” written by Florina Branzoi and Simona Petrescu. The article presents interesting results with high interest to the readers. The research and the methods are designed and described adequately. I recommend the publication of the manuscript in Coatings after the authors take into account the following comments) corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing).
Figure 1 - Use different symbols and lines to distinguish the experimental conditions.
- Re-plot the x-axis in the range of 0 to 1800.
Same comment for Figure 2.
Line 229, page 7 cm2 (superscript).
Figure 4 same scale, same step (x-axis) for FT-IR. Same labels (x-axis), for example, parenthesis and superscript.
Indexing the representative FT-IR peaks.
Line 283, page 9 CH3 (subscript), same comment for line 295.
Figure 5 Re-plot the x-axis in the range of -400 to 400.
Check Table and Figure in all text, for example, Table 1-3 (line 339, page 11)
Figure 6 Re-plot the x-axis in the range of -400 to 400. Same comment for Figure 6.
Table 1 Check all parenthesis (units). Include the uncertainties. Same comment for Table 2 and Table 3.
Check line 389, page 15 (subscript), line 413, page 16.
Number equation line 434, page 16.
Table 4, check parenthesis (units). Include the uncertainties. Same comment for Tables 5 and 6.
Check parenthesis line 521, page 21.
Line 522 (superscript).
Figure 12 Include (x-axis) Energy (keV).
Check references, and use journal abbreviations.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Thank you for your comments and corrections. The required revision was done thus:
Figure 1 - Use different symbols and lines to distinguish the experimental conditions.
- Re-plot the x-axis in the range of 0 to 1800.
Same comment for Figure 2.
Answer: all the required changes have been made
Line 229, page 7 cm2 (superscript).
Answer: The mistake was corrected.
Figure 4 same scale, same step (x-axis) for FT-IR. Same labels (x-axis), for example, parenthesis and superscript.
Answer: The corrections have been made
Indexing the representative FT-IR peaks.
Answer: all the required changes have been made
Line 283, page 9 CH3 (subscript), same comment for line 295.
Answer: The mistake was corrected.
Figure 5 Re-plot the x-axis in the range of -400 to 400.
Answer: all the required changes have been made
Check Table and Figure in all text, for example, Table 1-3 (line 339, page 11)
Answer: The corrections have been made
Figure 6 Re-plot the x-axis in the range of -400 to 400. Same comment for Figure 6.
Answer: The changes have been made
Table 1 Check all parenthesis (units). Include the uncertainties. Same comment for Table 2 and Table 3.
Answer: all the required changes have been made
Check line 389, page 15 (subscript), line 413, page 16.
Answer: The corrections have been made
Number equation line 434, page 16.
Answer: The numbering has been done
Table 4, check parenthesis (units). Include the uncertainties. Same comment for Tables 5 and 6.
Answer: all the required changes have been made
Check parenthesis line 521, page 21.
Answer: The corrections have been made
Line 522 (superscript).
Answer: The changes have been made
Figure 12 Include (x-axis) Energy (keV).
Check references, and use journal abbreviations.
Answer: all the required changes have been made
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors successfully dealt with the raised issue. I recommend it acceptance in the present form.
