Next Article in Journal
Tribo-Electrochemical Considerations for Assessing Galvanic Corrosion Characteristics of Metals in Chemical Mechanical Planarization
Next Article in Special Issue
Amperometric Alcohol Vapour Detection and Mass Transport Diffusion Modelling in a Platinum-Based Sensor
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Ultrasonic Spray Coating of Carbon Fibers for Composite Cathodes in Structural Batteries
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study on the Corrosion Resistance and Application of Nano-Y2O3/Al2O3-Modified Anchor Rod Coatings Based on Electrodeposition Method

Electrochem 2025, 6(2), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/electrochem6020014
by Xiujuan Feng 1,2,3,* and Falong Qiu 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Electrochem 2025, 6(2), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/electrochem6020014
Submission received: 24 February 2025 / Revised: 10 April 2025 / Accepted: 11 April 2025 / Published: 17 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Electrochemistry)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Feng and colleagues prepared a manuscript on the development of a protective Zn-Y₂O₃-Al₂O₃ coating using an electrodeposition method to enhance the corrosion resistance of anchor rods. The preparation method for the coating was described and compared to a conventional Zn layer. Characterization techniques such as PXRD, SEM, and EDS were employed to analyze the coating composition. Additionally, hardness tests, electrochemical analyses, and corrosion experiments were conducted to evaluate the coating's resistance under saltwater conditions. Overall, the manuscript presents a method for improving corrosion-resistant coatings and investigates key scientific aspects. However, several issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

  • Elemental composition analysis: The elemental compositions of the deposited layer (Zn-Y-Al ratio) were only provided in Figure 5. However, EDS is primarily a surface characterization technique and may not accurately represent the bulk composition. To obtain a more reliable measurement of the deposited layer's composition, bulk characterization methods such as ICP-OES analysis should be performed.
  • Mass loss rate analysis: The manuscript reports the mass loss rates of Zn, Zn-Y₂O₃, and Zn-Y₂O₃-Al₂O₃. However, since Zn is likely the primary component undergoing corrosion in mine water, I suggest including an additional figure that presents the mass loss rate normalized to the Zn content. For example, if Zn-Y₂O₃-Al₂O₃ contains m% Zn, the mass loss should be scaled by dividing the reported values by m% to provide a more accurate comparison.
  • Line 99: Na₂CO₃ – The "2" and "3" should be subscript.
  • Line 100: HNO₃ – The "3" should be subscript.
  • Figures: The resolution of Figure 2 is low, making it difficult to read the numbers and labels. The resolution of all figures should be improved—please replace them with high-resolution versions.
  • Abbreviations: The abbreviation FSEM is used without explanation. Does it stand for Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope? Please clarify.
  • Line 379: Icorr_{corr}corr​ = 1.06 × 10⁵ A/cm² – The "-5" should be superscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting but needs some additions.

  • The coatings studied are known - what is new in the research presented needs to be clarified.
  • On line 53, please provide the encountered ranges of T, pH, O2 and ion content to approximate the corrosive conditions under which mine anchor rod materials are used.\
  • Line 93 and Table 1: please provide the quantities of nanomaterials used.
  • The numbers in the compound formulae (e.g. in lines 99 and 100) should be in subscripts.
  • Line 107: in the future, instead of prolonged mechanical mixing, propose to consider more efficient ultrasound mixing.
  • Line 131: Should be "scanning rate is 10 mV/s" instead of "amplitude is 10 mv/s". The scanning rate used is high and may lead to unreliable results. Please take this into account.
    How long was the sample immersed in the solution before the polarisation curve started to be recorded?
  • Lines 133-135: Was a new sample used for EIS testing or was the EIS test performed on the same sample as the polarisation curve measurement? If the same sample was used, which measurement was performed first EIS or polarisation curve?
  • Figure 2: Illegible figures (too small font and blurred).
  • Table 3: Ion charges seem to be missing in the last 6 rows of the table
  • Figure 10: the figure shows “mass loss” and not “mass loss rate”.
    Line 463: Instead of ‘Tafel curve’ it should be ‘polarization curves’ or ‘Tafel analisis of polarization curves’.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the study on the corrosion resistance and application of nano Y2O3/Al2O3 modified anchor rod coating based on electrodeposition method. The topic is highly interesting but the manuscript can be published after major revisions. I have outlined the following points for consideration:

  1. The significance and the novelty of the work is not clearly highlighted in the manuscript. The authors should discuss this more in detail.
  2. The introduction is very short and latest paper related to this study should be incorporated.
  3. The manuscript requires a better comparison to existing Zn-based coatings in literature. A comparison table summarizing hardness, corrosion resistance, and wear properties of similar coatings from previous studies should be included which would provide better context.
  4. In the XRD analysis, the authors states that Y2O3 and Al2O3 peaks were not visible due to the low content. However, the authors is advised to conduct the Rietveld refinement in order to confirm their presence.
  5. The manuscript requires grammar improvement and careful editing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires improvement in its English language. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of my comments have been addressed. However, there is one remaining issue: in Figure 5, the inserted tables contain text in a language other than English. Please update them accordingly. Other than that, it is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful attention, the Figure 5 has been revised as requested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary corrections and clarifications. In my opinion the article can be published.

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, after revisions, is suitable for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you!

Back to TopTop