Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Search
by
  • Wei Wei 1,
  • Hewei Yu 1 and
  • Baofeng Zhao 2,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present results of the effect of fouling layer on corrosion rate of various steel types. The work falls within the scope of the journal processes. However, I recommend the paper be accepted only after revision. Please find below my comments:

  1. The manuscript as it is is very difficult to read and follow the discussion. The authors need to significantly improve the language and grammar.
  2. The contributions of the work is not clear enough. The authors should clearly articulate that in the introduction.
  3. Subscripts should be written correctly example CO2, etc.
  4. How is Equation (1) a differential equation? Are they authors dealing with a dynamic system? Is this in error? This needs to be explained.
  5. What does the authors mean by the density of filtrate and concentration of filtrate in Line 173? They seem to both be mass densities but with different units. Why is this so? Why are they both 1 but with different units?
  6. Abbreviations need to be defined when they first appear in the text.eg. SEM, EDS?
  7. Fix reference errors in Lines 280 and 281
  8. What is "more acid and less particles", "less acid and more particles" ? This is not scientific and should be clearly defined using the numbers.
  9. What is negative corrosion rate mean in Figure 7 for MgO/CaO? This should be explained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors investigated the effect of fouling layer (acid-ash reaction) on low-2 temperature corrosion covering heating surface in coal-fired 3 flue gas.

  1. "Research on" should be removed from the title
  2. CO2 should be fully written as carbon dioxide with CO2 in the bracket. Please, take note of the subscript.
  3. Please, clearly highlight the novelty and contribution of the study in the last paragraph.
  4. In line 99, the word "characters" should "characteristics"
  5. Most of the chemical formulae are not well written. For instance, CO2, H2SO4, and so on. Please, revise.
  6. The Figures 1 and 2 captions are not well written.
  7. In line 191 "Experimental researches" Please, correct.
  8. Please, provide a clearer picture of Figures 5 and 6.
  9. Figures 8-12 are not properly labeled. There are two images in each of the Figures which should be labeled a and b with proper description. 
  10. Please, thoroughly revise the manuscript for language and syntax errors.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the comments raised. I, therefore, recommend the manuscript for acceptance. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your former Issues. Those Issues are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance for our researches. Thanks again for your recognition of our work.

Best wishes.

                                                                                                            Wei Wei