Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, your research is of the great interest but it needs be rewrite entirely the paper since it appears a lot of fault of data, unclear analysis of results, some of them based on speculations. Moreover, take care with the journal style for writing the document.  I enclose the revision with some significative comments to improve your paper.Best greetings.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented very interesting research results and applied several complementary research methods. 

Why the research was done on a stationary/stagnant electrolyte ?

The authors of the article indicate the possibility of hydrogen evolution as a depolarization reaction. The course of the presented curves does not indicate this. Typical courses of corrosion occurring under conditions of oxygen depolarization were obtained.

On the other hand, in impedance spectra, the nature of the diffusion control of corrosion processes is practically invisible.

Line 217 is: "impedance amplitude at 0.01 Hz
decreased "- probably should be:" impedance module at ... "

The values of the coating resistance, or rather the pore resistance, are very small at high capacitance values. Should you not omit these elements in the substitute circuit and try to calculate according to randles, replacing the capacitance with a constant-phase element?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

minor improvements in spellings, see line 36 and 41

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments.

The spellings in the text are checked and corrected.

"ad" in line 36 is "and".

The repeated "The" in line 41 has been deleted. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, you has been improved pretty well your paper. I recommend you that change a little bit the abstract in order to translate to the reader the meaning and intention of your research.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions. We have revised the abstract. Some changes are made and tracked in color in the manuscript.

“than uniform corrosion” was inserted between “more dangerous” and “because” in line 9. “ not show significant mass loss but it can” was inserted between “may” and “cause” in line 9 and line 10.

 A sentence “ Localized corrosion of steel in seawater is influenced by many factors such as the local heterogeneities of the steel, the local electrochemical and microbiological environments. It is difficult to predict and the mechanism is not fully understood” was added in line 11.

The sentence in line 17 “Localized corrosion rate has been found much higher than the uniform corrosion rate in the steel exposed to seawater” is replaced with “Localized corrosion rate has been found as high as 0.82 mm/y in the seawater in the presence of bacteria. In case of localized corrosion, applying uniform corrosion measurement techniques and formulas are not considered representative. The representative areas have to be introduced to match physical results with the measurements.”

We hope this will make the intention and meaning of our research clear and substantial.