Effect of Ca/Mg on Distribution and Morphology of MnS Inclusions in 45MnVS Non-Quenched and Tempered Steel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present the effect of Ca/Mg addition on the distribution and morphology of MnS inclusion in steel. The authors compared the change of sulfide morphology in 3 steels with Ca, Mg, and Ca+Mg additions. However, the author's findings and conclusions are similar to the previous research [Materials 2019, 12, 197; doi:10.3390/ma12020197]. Therefore, the authors should address the new finding compared to the previous research [Materials 2019, 12, 197; doi:10.3390/ma12020197]. Repeated explanations in the Discussion section (e.g., Figs. 8, 9, and 10) should also be revised.

Author Response

We really appreciate your comments and expertise input. Your suggestions are really valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study of steel alloying and the study of its properties, depending on the nature of the formation and the type of inclusion, is one of the topical topics in the foundry of ferrous metals. This is due to the fact that the type and amount of these inclusions in castings directly affects the complex of physical and mechanical properties of the finished product. Therefore, the study of the influence of the effect of treatment with calcium, magnesium and combined treatment with calcium and magnesium on inclusions in unquenched and tempered steel 45MnVS.

In the work, the authors describe in detail the shape and size of inclusions depending on the degree of processing of Ca, Mg and Ca-Mg steel, however, the article lacks information on the recommended technological parameters for obtaining the highest quality steel with a minimum amount of non-metallic inclusions.

Moreover, the introduction considers an insufficient number of sources describing the formation and distribution of non-metallic inclusions. Therefore, I recommend using the following sources:

1) Production and properties of aluminum-based composites modified with carbon nanotubes // Materials Today: Proceedings. - 2019. - V. 19 (5). – P. 1826–1830.

2) Production of primary silumins ingots modified with strontium // Solid State Phenomena. – 2021. – V. 316 – P. 490–495.

If the noted additions are made, the work is recommended for publication.

Author Response

We really appreciate your comments and expertise input. Your suggestions are really valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for presenting your work.  The authors have described their work sufficiently and have presented good results. The work is significant to readers interested in steel industries and research, but the steel is not commonly used in many countries. In order to make the work visible to a wider steel community, I suggest that the authors implement the following queries: 

1) Write a proper introduction describing this steel and its history and advantages.

2) Present the theory of controlling the sulphides in this steel through adding oxide forming elements such as Al, Si, Mg and Ca.

3) Compare the results obtained in this work with others using Al killing for this steel.

4) Compare the sulphides observed in this steel with those reported for low C steels.

5) The description of the experimental work shows that the steel was cast and hot rolled. I cannot see how this is related to non-quenched and tempered steel?

6) Revise the grammar in the manuscript, specially text citing figures as it should be Fig. x (shows or show) not showed and this error appeared in many cites where the past tense was used incorrectly.

Author Response

We really appreciate your comments and expertise input. Your suggestions are really valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have studied the comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the difference between this manuscript from the author’s previous paper. Therefore, I have no further concerns about this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for addressing my comments. The work is clear now for wide readers.