Chitosan-Based Sustainable Coatings for Corrosion Inhibition of Aluminum in Seawater
, Reyna Guadalupe Sánchez-Duarte 1,*, Yedidia Villegas-Peralta 1, Víctor Manuel Orozco-Carmona 2 and Jesús Álvarez-Sánchez 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This report is very interesting however some revisions before consideration. My review comments and suggestions are given below:
1. The title should be modified to “Chitosan-based sustainable coatings….”.
2. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to include more qualitative outcomes.
3. The graphical image is not clear enough. The authors need to revise it for clarity.
4. In the introduction, chitosan's significance in corrosion protection should be highlighted. Many review papers need to be cited e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2015.03.008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crgsc.2021.100184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.06.049, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124924, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.120011, etc.
5. Some of the figures are not clear enough. Please improve their quality. The digits are not clear. E.g. Figures 2, 4, 5, etc.
6. What was the reproducibility of data? Please document the standard deviation. The information on the replication of experiments is missing.
7. Why are electrochemical studies not performed? The electrochemical studies will provide more information on the coating properties.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript concerns the use of chitosan-based coating for corrosion inhibition of aluminum in seawater.
The manuscript takes up an interesting topic. The planned research are appropriate, but requires additional explanations.
1. The introduction is concise, and appropriate prepared.
2. Materials and Methods:
2.1. Reagents; I propose to change the description of the reagents. Percentages once refer to the concentration of solutions (the solvent was not indicated) and the second time to purity.
2.4. Coating preparation; the description of coatings preparation in the table would be clearer (paragraphs 130-139). The description in paragraphs 140-160 needs improvement, it is confusing. What does “… rate and [22].. (line 143) mean? Why repeat sample names (lines 154, 155)?
2.5. Gravimetric tests. I propose to change the entry “… and then weekly…”. In the results and discussion, the authors mention tests after 21 and 150 days. It should be clearly emphasized that the measurements were carried out every week for up to 150 days.
2.7. Coatings characterization studies; Description of FTIR, How were the measurements for coatings on aluminum surfaces carried out?
3. Results and discussion;
Table 1 and line 235; different values for HMW, please correct.
Line 227; are you sure it's 50 kDa?
Table 2; no results for HMW-Chi. How does the data in the table relate to the data in the text (Line 302)?
Line 313; is “… from 100° to 20°…” correct?
Lines 400-406; on what basis is this conclusion? the increase in roughness may result from the coating damage under the influence of seawater, but on what basis are conclusions regarding the protective effect? Please explain.
3.5. gravimetric tests, there is no reference to pure aluminum. Why?
In general, the results presented in the manuscript do not confirm the protective effect of the obtained coatings. The gravimetric tests show large weight losses of the material under the influence of seawater.
Other minor comments are listed below:
- temperature should be written with a space between the value and the degree sign, please correct throughout the manuscript.
- line 203, no superscripts at cm-1. Also line 265
- line 280; “C=0”, please correct.
- Line 302, no degree sign. Also lines 316, 318, 321, 327.
- Line 572; ref [30]; please correct. Also ref[39]
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors nicely revised their manuscript. Now it can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the comment, thanks.
Reviewer 2 Report
Many thanks to the authors for responding to my comments.
Only in the case of comments regarding point 2.1. Reagents my comment was misinterpreted.
Please restore the paragraph to the previous version with the annotation that 25% Glu means a 25% solution of glutaraldehyde in water.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the review. The changes were done and shown in blue on page 3, line 116 of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
