Microstructure and Interface Characteristics of 17-4PH/YSZ Components after Co-Sintering and Hydrothermal Corrosion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is very intresting. And  microstructrue observation about the interface showed some excellent results. Hoever, the discussions and conclusions should be improved seriously. By the way, the fabricate technology of ceramic and steel layer should be described more clearly. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

I have read the results and conclusions critically and added further explanations.
I also explained the methodology in more detail and improved the illustrations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Up to date topic, well written, scientifically profound, clear argumentation.

A few minor corrections:

1. “number blank unit” like 62,5 %, 134 °C, 24 h (not: 62,5%, …)
2. No line break between number and unit or within units, e.g 70 nm, 10 minutes, 24 hours
3. For most of your devices and for some of your material your named correctly trade name and supplier, but for some devices and materials this is missing (e.g. alumina, steel, dispersant, defoamer, plasticizer, roller mill, sieve (size?), carrier tape, … ) – please complete this!
4. Everything you did do achieve your results you achieved in the past – so please use especially in chapter and partial in chapter 3 simple past instead of present (powder was put, suspension was homogenized, were produced with, phase was characterized, took place …).
5. Describe the micrograph in Fig. 3. What are the black, dark grey, light grey area? What is the difference between the porous and the dense area? Wherefrom in Fig. 3 did you take the detail of Fig. 4?
6. Describe “1” and “2” in Fig. 5.
7. The labelling of the diagram in Fig. 5 is way too small; so it is in Fig. 7, too.
8. The quality of Fig. is bad (at least in my pdf).
9. Chapter 4: use justification like in the rest of the document.
10. Literature: write all authors (like in most of the entries), not “et al. (like in entries, 1, 3, 4, 5 …).

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Thanks for the detailed review. I have incorporated your corrections, read the results and conclusions critically and added further explanations.
I also explained the methodology in more detail and improved the illustrations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good work for the application of ZrO2