In this paper the authors investigated a failed piece of high-pressure economizer tube and reported that the economizer

tube failed due to dew point corrosion. However, the main drawback of this paper is its poor English, lot of grammatical mistakes and in appropriate use of prepositions. Therefore, the authors should revise the whole manuscript. Moreover, several issues should be addressed: (1) The Abstract is less informative and should be rewritten (2) The Introduction is incomplete; especially the objective part is missing. Hence should be rewritten (3) Section 2.1 The Chemical Composition analysis part should be rewritten. The authors could try: The chemical composition of the failed tube was analyzed by Spark Emission Spectroscopy confirming to ASTM 406[] and the results are shown in Table-2. The chemical composition conformed to BS 3059 440. (4) Appropriate Reference related to ASTM 406 should be added in the reference section. (5) In Section 2.2, Macro-hardness testing, the authors documented that macro-hardness test was carried out at 30 kg force but the duration of the test was not mentioned. Why? (6) Section 2.4.1, Inspection of the inner surface, paragraph 1, line 4 to 5, pits inside tubes are due to the occurrence of oxygen corrosion; and in consistence with observations of Mukhopadhyay and et al. [5]. should be pits inside tubes are due to oxygen corrosion, consistent with the previous observation of Mukhopadhyay et al. [5] (7) In Section 2.4.2, Inspection of the outer surface, paragraph 1, line 1, In order to inspect the inner surface of the tubes, they were longitudinally cut this line is repeated and should be deleted. (8) In Section 2.5. Metallographic investigations, line 2 to 3 The pictures taken by light microscopes from the corroded regions inside the tubes are shown in Figs. 6-8. But in the Figure captions, the authors documented that Fig. 6 is an optical image whereas Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 is Stereograpy images. Why the authors use the term light microscope? This needs either rewarding or clarification. (9) In the same paragraph, line 4, meaning that the sample has should be indicated that the sample has. (10) Section 2.6. Surface analysis by EDS, line 1, the authors make the statement In this part of study, the sediments produced were analyzed by EDS. Why the authors used the word sediments instead of corrosion products? (11) Fig. 11

Should be

(12) In page 19, paragraph 1, line 3, These diagrams are shown in Fig. 11 for Fe-S-O in 723 k and 823 k. should be These diagrams are shown in Fig. 11 for Fe-S-O in 723 K and 823 K. (13) In Section 3. Discussion of the failure mechanism, line 1 As already pointed out should be As discussed earlier (14) In Equation 2, the values of h, ha, t tg, tw, are in FPS unit but the temperature of the economizer tube metal is calculated to be 2260C. This needs either rewarding or clarification. (15) Conclusion 4, the first line should be rewritten (16) Conclusion 5, ,. Should be .