Effect of Polytetrafluoroethylene Coating on Corrosion Wear Properties of AZ31 Magnesium Alloy by Electrophoretic Deposition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic taken up by the authors deals with an interesting issue. The paper focuses on the on improving the properties of the AZ31 magnesium alloy by using a protective coating. All references have been cited properly. The research methodology is also described in detail. The conclusions are extensive and are consistent with the research results. Overall, the article is considered interesting, but there are many errors, mainly editorial ones. Below are the main comments that should be taken into account when correcting the manuscript:

- Literature references should not be superscripted. This should be corrected throughout the text;

- The unit should be 'µm', not 'um';

- The first mention of Scanning electron microscopy is in line 79, so the abbreviation 'SEM' should be used there. Not in line 95;

- The abbreviation 'EIS' was explained unnecessarily a second time in line 117;

- In line 126  the authors write that the weight loss was measured using a 3D profilometer. However, a profilometer is a device usually used to measure surface roughness. Please verify this information and provide the exact Profilometer model. Perhaps this particular model has a weight measurement function;

- Fig. 3 – the unit on the vertical axis should be corrected to 'mV';

- Line 183 – contact angle is not expressed in the unit '℃' but in '°'. The unit should have been added to each value, not just the first one;

- Fig. 6 – what is this black sign above the bars? Values should be given above whiskers so as not to impair readability;

- Charts should be uniform. Once the units are given after the slash '/' and once in brackets '()';

- Line 193 – it should be ‘(𝑖_Corr )’;

- There should be spaces between the value and the unit. This needs to be corrected throughout;

- Table 2 – why is there ‘E_corro’ i ‘i_corro’ when previously there were ‘E_corr’ i ‘i_corr’;

- Line 263 – the ‘COF’ abbreviation should be expanded;

- Correct the caption of Fig. 12. There is no need to provide '1 N' for each figure a), b) and c) since in all cases the pressure was the same and only the time was changed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. XRD results should be explained more clearly. The plot should be magnified with proper texting inside the plot. What are the crystal structures of the film produced, as measured through XRD? It is not clear about the texts mentioned, such as "raw" and "transform" in the figure.

2. Figure 4: The figures in (d), (e) and (f) are in low magnification, i.e., 200 X or higher than 500X? Proper SEM images are required for the cross-sectional micrographs. It is not clear that what type of micrographs are mentioned here?

3. The authors have to calculate the corrosion rate and explain the results more properly. the authors need to refer the article, "Effect of Zr content on structure property relations of Ni-Zr alloy thin films with mixed nanocrystalline and amorphous structure" by Sahu et al. to measure the corrosion rate from the electrochemical plot.

4. Biggest issue with the manuscript is that the results are explained without any proper comparison with relevant literature. 

5. Figure 12. Image is required for 15 minute condition. All micrographs should be properly mentioned regarding type of images captured.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive improvement in writing skill required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors followed the comments, which improved the quality of the publication. The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest for the acceptance of the manuscript.