Review Reports
by
- Congcong Li 1,
- Haifeng Bian 2 and
- Hongbin Lu 1,3,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Urszula Mizerska
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a review for the manuscript coatings-3388503 entitled: “A PEDOT-PSS/Waterborne Acrylic Resin Coating for the Corrosion Resistance Enhancement of 304SS Bipolar Plates” by Congcong Li submitted to coatings.
1. The manuscript is well-written in terms of English and Science. It needs some rewriting and proofreading in some parts.
2. The title should reflect the corrosive medium and remove the “bipolar plates”. The research is about any stainless steel in many applications. See point 12 below.
3. Line 56: “binder, was introduced to increase the adhesion of PEDOT-PSS on SS BPs.” Where is the 304? Or is it a different stainless steel?
4. Line 72: Add the value of the Fe % instead of the “balance” to quickly show an idea of the content without needing to calculate.
5. What is the rationale behind using 200 mg of as-prepared PEDOT-PSS and 100 mg AR?
6. Figure 1 does not show the BPPs (bipolar plates) idea. Improve the sketch or remove Fig3.c.
7. Authors claim that the presence of characteristic IR peaks of EDOT and PSS, compared to the individual components, confirms the successful synthesis of PE-DOT-PSS. It is possible that this a mixture of the two components. How homogeneous is the “product”?
8. Fig. 2 caption need to differentiate between powder samples and metallic/coated samples.
9. Please unify the use of 304SS and SS in figures as well as text.
10. Make porosity values more informative. Either by giving a percentage or compare to a standard. “Lowest” porosity is not enough.
11. In fig. 6 caption, the “and their underlying interfaces (c, d)” is not clear. Clarify to agree with the text.
12. Where is the possibility of iron hydroxides in the corrosion mechanism?
13. There is no need to state the authors used a “simulated PEMFC environment”. The only thing is the a\sulfuric acid medium. You need to remove this and it is OK to mention that this can be an application to SS in PEMFC environments, in the introduction. If real PEMFC were tested then it is justifiable to report.
14. Proof of “conductivity” is weak. Rc values? XRD is not a proof!
15. The discussion part is very descriptive. Add more analysis and comparisons to the literature.
In its current status, the manuscript does rise to the level of “coatings.” and meets its criteria.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStainless steel bipolar plates (SS BPs) are susceptible to corrosion in acidic solutions, lim-11 iting their use in proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). In this paper, a poly(3,4-ethylene-12 dioxythiophene)-polystyrene sulfonic acid (PEDOT-PSS)/waterborne acrylic resin (AR) composite 13 coating was designed and prepared for enhancing the corrosion resistance of 304SS BPs.
The manuscript is very well written with enough references and the conclusions are supported by the measured data. Below I am sending my comments on the manuscript.
Comments on the experimental part and results and discussion parts:
1. Line 81: It would be appropriate to add an SEM of the synthesized particles (PEDOT-PSS) to Figure 1. In Figure 1 (a), the right figure could be replaced by SEM. The reader would get an idea of the particle shape.
2. Line 85: Why was dispersion carried out for 24 hours?
3. Line 85: Waterborne acrylic resin (AR) has been commercial product. It would be appropriate to add basic data about this binder (dry matter, density, .....).
4. Line 87: Spin-coated conditions should be added to the work (speed and time).
5. Line 84: How was the stability of the preparation of PEDOT-PSS/AR coating studied (depending on time or temperature)?
6. Fig. S2. (b): How long after preparation was this photo taken?
7. Line 138: It would be appropriate to add a detail of the fracture surface with a visible distribution of dispersed particles to Figure 2.
8. Line 136 – line 138: The labels of the individual images in Figure 2 do not correspond to the labels in the description of this figure.
9. Line 184 and line 223: The text in Figures 3 and 4 is difficult to read.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses the important topic of corrosion protection of stainless steel plates in acidic fuel cell solutions. The research conducted allowed the design of a new environmentally friendly, conductive and anti-corrosion coating. This is a new perspective on the design of high-performance SS BP. The title is adequate to the topic it deals with. The cited articles were appropriately selected, 40% of them are from the last 5 years, which indicates a good recognition of the state of knowledge on this topic. The research was well conducted and documented, the conclusions were drawn correctly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf