Evaluation of Half-Cell Potential Measurements for Reinforced Concrete Corrosion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review report has been removed from the review record as it did not conform with MDPI’s standards (https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers#_bookmark11).
Reviewer 2 Report
1 The abstract should be revised. The significances in engineering field should be highlighted.
2 The authors are suggested to explain the novelty of the paper.
3 In Section 2, the authors are suggested to add a diagram or picture of the flow chart of the procedure.
4 For the analysis in Section 3, further step analysis should be added. The authors are suggested to add comments as well as the references below. They are closely related with the present research. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2022, 168: 108624. Tribology International, 2021, 164: 107105 .
5 For the conclusions, it is a little long. Several brief points of conclusions are enough. The authors are suggested to rewrite the conclusions.
6 The English should be improved considerately.
Author Response
Evaluation of half-cell potential measurements for reinforced concrete corrosion
Response to comments and suggestions
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions that have improved our manuscript. Please find below a point-by-point response to the raised comments. We hope our response is satisfactory.
- Response to Reviewer 2
|
Comment 1 |
The abstract should be revised. The significances in engineering field should be highlighted. The authors are suggested to explain the novelty of the paper |
|
Response |
Thank you for this comment. The reviewer is correct in the sense that the major findings are not explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. Thus, the abstract, results, discussion, and conclusion sections were altered to include the findings more explicitly. |
|
Changes |
The major findings of the study were added to the manuscript to reflect the contribution of the study. Please check the abstract, results, and conclusion sections. The modified lines are highlighted in Yellow and Blue in the manuscript |
|
|
|
|
Comment 3 |
In Section 2, the authors are suggested to add a diagram or picture of the flow chart of the procedure. |
|
Response |
Comment considered. Thank you. |
|
Changes |
A flow chart that illustrates the process followed in the study was added (see Fig. 2)
|
|
|
|
|
Comment 4 |
For the analysis in Section 3, further step analysis should be added. The authors are suggested to add comments as well as the references below. They are closely related with the present research. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2022, 168: 108624. Tribology International, 2021, 164: 107105 . |
|
Response |
Comment considered. |
|
Changes |
Further analysis and the suggested reference have been added. The changes are highlighted in Blue in the results section |
|
|
|
|
Comment 5 |
For the conclusions, it is a little long. Several brief points of conclusions are enough. The authors are suggested to rewrite the conclusions. |
|
Response |
Comment considered, thank you. |
|
Changes |
The conclusion has been rewritten completely to present the results in a better way. The changes are highlighted in Blue in the conclusion section |
|
|
|
|
Comment 6 |
The English should be improved considerately. |
|
Response |
Comment considered. Thank you |
|
Changes |
The manuscript has been proofread and English has been improved considerably |
|
|
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript coatings-1777481 evaluates the performance of half-cell potential measurements in detecting corrosion of reinforced concrete. The results presented are not of sufficient novelty and importance to be considered for publication in Coatings in the current form. Below I provide my specific comments that will help the authors to improve the paper:
Comments:
1. The introduction part should be improved.
2. Figures are insufficiently described, for example, Figure 3 describes the above steps – it is not enough explained (very laconic explanation).
3. The poor quality of the image report, some images are not visible clearly.
4. The abbreviations are explained in the wrong places.
5. In the manuscript, a lot of mistakes were found, for example, in line 111, brackets without reference.
6. How many times were conducted measurements?
7. In the discussion part is no references to literature.
Author Response
Evaluation of half-cell potential measurements for reinforced concrete corrosion
Response to comments and suggestions
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions that have improved our manuscript. Please find below a point-by-point response to the raised comments. We hope our response is satisfactory.
- Response to Reviewer 3
|
Comment 1 |
The introduction part should be improved. |
|
Response |
Thank you for this comment. The reviewer is correct in the sense that the major findings are not explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. Thus, the abstract, results, discussion, and conclusion sections were altered to include the findings more explicitly. |
|
Changes |
The major findings of the study were added to the manuscript to reflect the contribution of the study. Please check the abstract, results, and conclusion sections. The modified lines are highlighted in Yellow and Blue in the manuscript |
|
|
|
|
Comment 2 |
Figures are insufficiently described, for example, Figure 3 describes the above steps – it is not enough explained (very laconic explanation). |
|
Response |
Thank you for this comment. Comment considered. |
|
Changes |
All figures have been described in detail. Please see modifications highlighted in Blue in the manuscript |
|
|
|
|
Comment 3 |
The poor quality of the image report, some images are not visible clearly. |
|
Response |
Comment considered. Thank you. |
|
Changes |
The images quality has been improved |
|
|
|
|
Comment 4 |
The abbreviations are explained in the wrong places. |
|
Response |
Comment considered |
|
Changes |
All the abbreviations were reviewed and modified accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Comment 5 |
In the manuscript, a lot of mistakes were found, for example, in line 111, brackets without reference. |
|
Response |
Comment considered. Thank you |
|
Changes |
The manuscript has been extensively reviewed and all the mistakes have been corrected |
|
|
|
|
Comment 6 |
How many times were conducted measurements? |
|
Response |
Thank you for this comment. The reviewer is correct in the sense that the number of measurements should be reported in the manuscript. Therefore, how many times the measurements have been performed has been added |
|
Changes |
Each beam was split into ten sections. The half-cell potential equipment was used to collect three readings at each test location per the ASTM C876 requirements |
|
|
|
|
Comment 7 |
In the discussion part is no references to literature.
|
|
Response |
Comment considered. Thank you |
|
Changes |
The discussion part has been modified and literature references have been added. The changes are highlighted in Blue in the results and discussion section |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This review report has been removed from the review record as it did not conform with MDPI’s standards (https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers#_bookmark11).
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Reviewer 3 Report
I accept paper in present form.
