Exploring the hydrophobic effects of quaternary ammonium copolymers on corrosion of casing and tubing steel in acidic solution

Ghadeer Mubarak; Chandrabhan Verma; Mohammad A. Jafar Mazumder; Imad Barsoum; Akram Alfantazi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320981

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 30, 2025
30 Jan 2025 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320981.r001
Decision Letter - Prashant Singh, Editor Dear Dr. Verma, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 31 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Prashant Singh Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments : Reviewers have submitted their opinion on manuscript and asked to revise the manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Mubarak et al. synthesized three quaternary ammonium-based copolymers (AMCs) with different hydrophobic qualities to inhibit P110 CS corrosion in 15% HCl. The results showed that AMCs act as corrosion inhibitors, with over 90% inhibition efficiency at 20 ppm concentration. They act as mixed-type corrosion inhibitors. The work is interesting and should be considered for publication after addressing the following comments: (a) The study's objectives should be further explored in the introduction. (b) The author should focus on how P110 CS is preferred over other steel grades for this application. (c) In the introduction, I recommend adding the corrosion mechanism in 15% HCl. This would be highly useful. (d) Please describe the reproducibility of experimental data. (e) The manuscript should be checked for grammatical and syntax error corrections. (f) Check and correctly write the units in Tables 1 and 2. After addressing the above minor comments, the manuscript can be accepted without further review. Reviewer #2: The present study describes the corrosion inhibition effect of three quaternary ammonium-based copolymers (AMCs) for P110 CS in 15% HCl. The study reported the effect of hydrophobic character on their inhibition effect. The inhibition potential increases with the hydrophobic character. The inhibitors are highly effective, showing over 90% efficiency at 20 ppm. My review comments and suggestions are given below: 1. Generally, such large molecules face solubility problems in polar electrolytes. What was their solubility? Add a few lines to it in the experimental section. 2. Please highlight the selection criteria for electrolytes, electrolytes, and inhibitors. 3. Please enlarge the discussion on the hydrophobic/hydrophilic ratio on corrosion and corrosion protection. 4. The inhibitors are positively charged/cationic. Please justify how they are adsorbing using chemisorption mode and following the Langmuir isotherm. 5. The corrosion protection mechanism is described in detail; however, no information has been given on the transport phenomenon of inhibitors to the metal surface. 6. Can activation energy's value be linked with the inhibitors' adsorption mode? Please read and cite some recent literature. 7. Report the standard deviation in tables for parameters derived experimentally. Reviewer #3: The authors presented an intelligible findings that provide insights for the or casing and tubing using three identify and formulate corrosion inhibitors namely quaternary ammonium-based copolymers (AMCs) with different hydrophobic qualities and investigate their ability to inhibit P110 Carbon Steel corrosion in 15% HCl environments. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Valentine Chikaodili Anadebe Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320981.r002
Revision 1
17 Feb 2025 Author Response Reviewer #1: Reviewer’s Comments: Mubarak et al. synthesized three quaternary ammonium-based copolymers (AMCs) with different hydrophobic qualities to inhibit P110 CS corrosion in 15% HCl. The results showed that AMCs act as corrosion inhibitors, with over 90% inhibition efficiency at 20 ppm concentration. They act as mixed-type corrosion inhibitors. The work is interesting and should be considered for publication after addressing the following comments: Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for reviewing our manuscript and making valuable comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions were very constructive, and they have greatly improved the quality of the revised manuscript. We revised our manuscript based on your reviewers' comments and suggestions; the revised areas are highlighted in red. In the response letter, we reproduced all comments by heading “Reviewer’s Comment”; our responses are given by heading “Author’s Response”. We believe that the revised manuscript meets the editor’s expectations and the journal’s standards. Reviewer’s Comment (a): The study's objectives should be further explored in the introduction. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. The study's objectives are highlighted further in the last paragraph of the introduction. Reviewer’s Comment (b): The author should focus on how P110 CS is preferred over other steel grades for this application. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your useful suggestion. The introduction has been revised, and more information on the preferential use of P110 CS for casing and tubing applications has been added. Reviewer’s Comment (c): In the introduction, I recommend adding the corrosion mechanism in 15% HCl. This would be highly useful. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your comments. However, the mechanism of steel corrosion in acidic solutions is frequently reported. Therefore, we don’t think there would be any benefits to adding a mechanism. Reviewer’s Comment (d): Please describe the reproducibility of experimental data. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, the electrochemical studies were repeated many times until we got consistent readings. Reviewer’s Comment (e): The manuscript should be checked for grammatical and syntax error corrections. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The entire manuscript has been checked carefully, and grammatical and syntax errors have been corrected. Reviewer’s Comment (f): Check and correctly write the units in Tables 1 and 2. After addressing the above minor comments, the manuscript can be accepted without further review. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The units have been checked and corrected in Tables 1 and 2. Reviewer #2: Reviewer’s Comments: The present study describes the corrosion inhibition effect of three quaternary ammonium-based copolymers (AMCs) for P110 CS in 15% HCl. The study reported the effect of hydrophobic character on their inhibition effect. The inhibition potential increases with the hydrophobic character. The inhibitors are highly effective, showing over 90% efficiency at 20 ppm. My review comments and suggestions are given below: Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for reviewing our manuscript and making valuable comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions were very constructive, and they have greatly improved the quality of the revised manuscript. We revised our manuscript based on your reviewers' comments and suggestions; the revised areas are highlighted in red. In the response letter, we reproduced all comments by heading “Reviewer’s Comment”; our responses are given by heading “Author’s Response”. We believe that the revised manuscript meets the editor’s expectations and the journal’s standards. Reviewer’s Comment 1: Generally, such large molecules face solubility problems in polar electrolytes. What was their solubility? Add a few lines to it in the experimental section. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your useful suggestion. Because of their cationic nature, the evaluated inhibitors were completely soluble in the test electrolyte within the investigated concentration range. This information has been added to the revised manuscript. Please see heading 2.2. Reviewer’s Comment 2: Please highlight the selection criteria for electrolytes, electrolytes, and inhibitors. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your useful suggestion. The criteria behind the selection of electrolytes, electrolytes, and inhibitors have been explored in the introduction. Reviewer’s Comment 3: Please enlarge the discussion on the hydrophobic/hydrophilic ratio on corrosion and corrosion protection. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your useful suggestion. The discussion on hydrophobic/hydrophilic ratio on corrosion and corrosion protection. Reviewer’s Comment 4: The inhibitors are positively charged/cationic. Please justify how they are adsorbing using chemisorption mode and following the Langmuir isotherm. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your useful comment and suggestion. You are kindly requested to read the mechanism of the corrosion inhibition part. There, we have described that the protonated inhibitor molecules approach the metal surface through physisorption, but once they reach the metal surface, the unshared electron pairs may be transferred via coordination bonding or chemisorption mode. Reviewer’s Comment 5: The corrosion protection mechanism is described in detail; however, no information has been given on the transport phenomenon of inhibitors to the metal surface. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your comments. However, the mechanism of steel corrosion in acidic solutions is frequently reported. Therefore, we don’t think there would be any benefits to adding a mechanism. Reviewer’s Comment 6: Can activation energy's value be linked with the inhibitors' adsorption mode? Please read and cite some recent literature. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, the significance of activation energy values with adsorption behavior has been described in the last segment of heading 3.3. Reviewer’s Comment 7: Report the standard deviation in tables for parameters derived experimentally. Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, the electrochemical studies were repeated many times until we got consistent readings. The goodness of fit values have been given in the tables. Reviewer #3: Reviewer’s Comments: The authors presented intelligible findings that provide insights for the or casing and tubing using three identify and formulate corrosion inhibitors namely quaternary ammonium-based copolymers (AMCs) with different hydrophobic qualities and investigate their ability to inhibit P110 Carbon Steel corrosion in 15% HCl environments. Author’s Response: Author’s Response: Dear reviewer, thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript and recommending it for consideration. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response o Reviewers Comments.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320981.r003
Decision Letter - Prashant Singh, Editor Exploring the Hydrophobic Effects of Quaternary Ammonium Copolymers on Corrosion of Casing and Tubing Steel in Acidic Solution PONE-D-25-05283R1 Dear Dr. Verma, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Prashant Singh Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Accept Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Author have significantly improved on the revised version of this manuscript. I strongly recommend acceptance in its current form. Reviewer #2: Authors have addressed all the comments made by reviewer in the revised manuscript and now acceptable for publication, ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Valentine Chikaodili Anadebe Reviewer #2: Yes: Indra Bahadur ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320981.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Prashant Singh, Editor PONE-D-25-05283R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Verma, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Prashant Singh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320981.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .