Suitability of Remediated PFAS-Affected Soil in Cement Pastes and Mortars

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The topic is interesting for the readers. The paper is strongly published However, extensive English editing is necessary.The authors should carefully check the whole manuscript for grammar and typos 
2. the paper title should be modified "Assessment the applicability of using treated PFAS soil in cement and concrete applications".
3. some figures are not referred in the paper such as Figure 1. 
4. The conclusions are too general.More, precise and concise conclusions as well as recommendations for future work are needed.
5. The durability of concrete in which the treated PFAS soil should be highlighted and carefully addressed.
6. other notes are highlighted in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General remarks

The title of the article needs to be amended. According to the content of the article, the applications concerned pastes and mortars, not concrete. The possibilities of application of the examined fine aggregate to concrete were mentioned only at the end of the article (p. 4), as a potential future research direction.

In scientific articles, trade names (e.g. line 87 "Eureka General Purpose Cement ") and material manufacturers (e.g. line 147 "Sika Australia Pty Ltd") should generally be avoided. It should be emphasized that this information gives little to the reader. In the case of cement, its physical, mechanical and chemical properties should be indicated. If no own research has been carried out, cement producers make available e.g. product technical sheets, etc. On the other hand, the information about the superplasticizer that it is based on polycarboxylate in the opinion of the reviewer is sufficient.

Do not use the term "concrete sand" in the article. As explained (line 141) it is "washed sand" and this is the correct term. This should be changed throughout the article.

Specific comments

2. Materials and Methods

There is a lack of information on the detailed composition of the tested pastes and mortars. The tabular form is the most readable, and the partial information given in the text is, according to the reviewer, insufficient.

Line 90 - Has any research plan been adopted? Why were 5-10 samples tested to determine the compressive strength rather than a fixed number for a particular material (paste or mortar)? Please explain or complete.

Line 94 - Is the information "for a further 27 days curing" correct?

Line 263-267 - The found linear relationship between fine aggregate replacement and normalized volume of SP (undoubtedly with a very high correlation coefficient) refers to one type of cement and a superplasticizer; the conclusion drawn about the universality of this relationship for other mortars of different composition is too far-reaching (too few studies), in the opinion of the reviewer it should be rewritten or removed.

4. Summary and Conclusions

Line 388 - No concrete has been tested; please rewrite

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting and the article is well structured.
It would be useful to indicate the technical characteristics of the tests you conducted on the specimens with regard to the slum (Figure 5) and the compressive strength (Figure 7).
In particular, can you describe the characteristics of the tests conducted (number of specimens used, size, etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

You took a constructive approach toward addressing my and other comments and suggestions. I am now satisfied your manuscript is acceptable for publication.