Using Plastic Sand as a Construction Material toward a Circular Economy: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a review of achievements in the field of application of the plastic sand both as an additive to construction materials and as a construction material itself. The paper, in general, adds nothing new to the state of knowledge, it merely attempts to organize this state. However, it was the assumption and goal of the authors which has been achieved.
From the substantive point of view, the reviewer has two remarks:
Line 143-147: the criteria are illogical. It should be (e.g.): coarse sand is retained by 2 mm mesh sieve, medium sand is retained by 425 µm mesh sieve, fine sand is retained by 75 µm mesh sieve, all of them pass 4.75 mm mesh sieve. Mistakes in copying?
Line 237: frictional coefficients are not measured in %, hence was it 0.372 and 0.289 or 0.00372 and 0.00289 what the authors meant? The first pair seems more logical.
From the linguistic point of view, the language of the manuscript is correct and clear.
Author Response
Point 1: Line 143-147: the criteria are illogical. It should be (e.g.): coarse sand is retained by 2 mm mesh sieve, medium sand is retained by 425 µm mesh sieve, fine sand is retained by 75 µm mesh sieve, all of them pass 4.75 mm mesh sieve. Mistakes in copying?
The mistake has been corrected.
Point 2:
Line 237: frictional coefficients are not measured in %, hence was it 0.372 and 0.289 or 0.00372 and 0.00289 what the authors meant? The first pair seems more logical.
The mistake has been corrected.
Attached please find a clean copy and a copy with track changes.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presented for review is a review article. The paper presents the use of various types of plastics as a building material, which is an important component of bricks in sustainable construction.
The information presented in the individual chapters (eg 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 4.5 4.6) is illegible due to the textual description. It is recommended that, where possible, their results should be presented in the form of a drawing or a table.
The paper also lacks an example of the recipe compositions of individual authors.
The discussion is very limited, it should be extended with additional tables of parameters other than compressive strength. Units should also be given in MPa.
Line 146 - 425 m?
Despite the fact that it is a review article, in the opinion of the reviewer, the scope of the analyzed parameters should be described and presented in more detail. The entire article needs to be changed.
Author Response
Point 1: The information presented in the individual chapters (eg 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 4.5 4.6) is illegible due to the textual description. It is recommended that, where possible, their results should be presented in the form of a drawing or a table.
Additional tables/figures have been introduced to address your comment. (See figure 1, Table 1, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Figure 2, Figure 3, Table 6, Table 7, Figure 4, Table 8)
Point 2: The paper also lacks an example of the recipe compositions of individual authors.
The recipes were reported based on the authors’ papers.
Point 3: The discussion is very limited, it should be extended with additional tables of parameters other than compressive strength. Units should also be given in MPa.
The literature reveals that most of the researchers focus on compressive strength. Few researchers address other parameters such as thermal conductivity and water absorptions and their results were reported.
All units of measurements have been converted into MPa
Point 4: Despite the fact that it is a review article, in the opinion of the reviewer, the scope of the analyzed parameters should be described and presented in more detail. The entire article needs to be changed.
Changes have been made as possible to address your comment. (Please see the copy with a track change).
Attached please find a clean revised copy and a copy with track changes.
Thank you for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a good topic related to. Toward a Circular Economy: Using Plastic Sand as a Construc- tion Material: State-of-the-art. The attached file to improve the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1:Abstract must be rewritten seriously, such as the new findings and novelty The summary needs to contain more quantitative information.
Abstract has been expanded to address findings and novelty (see line 15-24 (clean copy)).
Similarly, the conclusion (summary) has been expanded (see line 481- 520 (clean copy)
Point 2: The keywords should include the most important results Please rearrange the keywords in Alphabet order
Addressed ( see attached).
Point 3: Other fundamental questions need to be included in the introduction. The introduction presents a very optimistic view of green construction. I believe the authors need to include some critical information about this type of material. Here are some suggestions for citations that may help the authors: (2020). Effects of using rice straw and cotton stalk ashes on the properties of lightweight selfcompacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 235, 117541. (2020). Improving the brittle behavior of high strength concrete using banana and palm leaf sheath fibers. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, 1-10.
The scope of the paper as indicated focuses on plastic sand construction material rather than other green construction alternative materials. The introduction, however, was expanded/revised.
Point 4: Line 59: The authors should provide better explanation for the readers what was the difference between existing literature and the present study
This has been addressed. Please see lines 85-89 (clean copy).
Point 5: Discussion Cite related ref. and more discussion
The discussion has been expanded and the additional references have been reviewed and Incorporated
Point 6: Conclusion add some of the important findings to conclusion point by point
The conclusion has been expanded to cover important findings (see line 481- 520 (clean copy).
Attached please find a clean revised copy and a copy with track changes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
