Next Article in Journal
Collections in the Expanded Field: Relationality and the Provenance of Artefacts and Archives
Next Article in Special Issue
Unburying Hidden Land and Maritime Cultural Potential of Small Islands in the Mediterranean for Tracking Heritage-Led Local Development Paths
Previous Article in Journal
Ethical and Legal Considerations for Collection Development, Exhibition and Research at Museums Victoria
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Corrosion and Conservation Management of the Submarine HMAS AE2 (1915) in the Sea of Marmara, Turkey

by Ian D. MacLeod
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Submission received: 12 February 2019 / Revised: 28 February 2019 / Accepted: 5 March 2019 / Published: 14 March 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The HMAS AE2 submarine wreck site is buried in the Sea of Marmara at 72 meters below the sea level. This First World War submarine was discovered in 1995 covered with a dense anaerobic concretion. In-situ corrosion measurements of the submarine's hull were performed. The great depth of the wreck site and the low levels of dissolved oxygen inside the AE2 provided a relatively stable storage environment for the submarine wreck. Corrosion simulation revealed a relationship between the chloride levels beneath the concretion layer and the pH of the solution. According to ROV examination the interior of the submarine vessel was remarkably preserved. A ten-tons of zinc anodes network, which was found distributed at the submarine wreck, provides an in-situ conservation environment.


My sincere compliments to the author of this well written, organized and original manuscript. The work is original and the topic of this research is very interesting to the readers of Heritage. Therefore, I recommend to publish this contribution in Heritage after recommending only minor corrections, as explained below.


(1) It is recommended to remove the external contour line shown in Figures 1, 2, and 11.

(2) Scale bars should be added to Figures 3, 4, 5.

(3) Page 10, line 295: please change 2.6m to 2.6 m.

(4) Citation of up-to-date relevant literature is missing.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The file will be uploaded in response to reviewer 1 and all the points have been corrected and or changed in accordance with comments on scales, borders etc and it is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

That was a great work!

Author Response

Thank you for your kind words

Back to TopTop