Laboratory Evaluation of High-Temperature Properties of Recycled PMA Binders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The manuscript deals with High-Temperature Properties of Recycled PMA Binders. The research is not innovative but it is useful. The structure of the manuscript is clear. The results are well explained. The experiments of the manuscript are simple. Some of the important points are highlighted below:
1. The abstract should state the purpose of the research, the principal results, and the major conclusions briefly. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. The abstract structure should be as follows: (introduction, problem of statement, materials, methods, results, and recommendations). Please revise your abstract.
2. I suggest the authors to conduct a more in-depth review and summarize in section 1.
- Li, H., Cui, C., Temitope, A. A., Feng, Z., Zhao, G., & Guo, P. (2022). Effect of SBS and crumb rubber on asphalt modification: A review of the properties and practical application. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition).
- Bilema, M., Aman, M. Y., Hassan, N. A., Al-Saffar, Z., Mashaan, N. S., Memon, Z. A& Yusoff, N. I. M. (2021). Effects of Waste Frying Oil and Crumb Rubber on the Characteristics of a Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Binder. Materials, 14(13), 3482.
3. I suggest the authors to modify the side topic in fig. 3 to “viscosity (cp)” and fig. 4 to “G*/sin & (Kpa)”
4. The points presented in the conclusion section are not up to the mark. The authors are advised to revise it completely and try to present information, which is a summary of the important aspects discussed in the preceding sections. It certainly lacks in its current form.
- Change the name of section 5 to “Conclusion and Recommendations”.
- Add Recommendations.
- Add more critical points.
proofreading needed
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The abstract should state the purpose of the research, the principal results, and the major conclusions briefly. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. The abstract structure should be as follows: (introduction, problem of statement, materials, methods, results, and recommendations). Please revise your abstract.
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. We revised it.
Point 2: I suggest the authors to conduct a more in-depth review and summarize in section 1.
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. We revised it.
- I suggest the authors to modify the side topic in fig. 3 to “viscosity (cp)” and fig. 4 to “G*/sin & (Kpa)”
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. We revised it.
- The points presented in the conclusion section are not up to the mark. The authors are advised to revise it completely and try to present information, which is a summary of the important aspects discussed in the preceding sections. It certainly lacks in its current form.
- Change the name of section 5 to “Conclusion and Recommendations”.
- Thanks for your comments. We revised it.
- Add Recommendations.
- Thanks for your comments. We revised it.
- Add more critical points.
- Thanks for your comments. The main critical point is that modifiers in asphalt mixture appear to have their unique properties even after reusing them in recycled asphalt mixture. We have appropriately incorporated the key points and summary.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Author can improve the Literature on the modified binder and methods of mixing.
Author can improve the Literature on the modified binder and methods of mixing.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Author can improve the Literature on the modified binder and methods of mixing.
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. We have revised it.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Abstract it is very long and some sentences could be take off to be summarized
Rewrite the conclusion 3) for better understanding
Conclusion 4) must be improved with a new writing
Missing/errors:
Figure 3: y axis, rotational viscosity (cP)
Figure 6, Figure 7: Jnr (units are missing)
3.3.3. To change % by ‘percentage’
Line 408: ‘tis properties’
Line 415: ‘further studies are considered that evaluation’
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Abstract it is very long and some sentences could be take off to be summarized
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript accordingly to the following (introduction, problem of statement, materials, methods, results, and recommendations)
Point 2: Rewrite the conclusion 3) for better understanding
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript.
Point 3: Conclusion 4) must be improved with a new writing
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript.
Point 4: Figure 3: y axis, rotational viscosity (cP)
Response 4: Thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript.
Point 5: Figure 6, Figure 7: Jnr (units are missing)
Response 5: Thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript.
Point 6: 3.3.3. To change % by ‘percentage’
Response 6: Thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript.
Point 7: ‘tis properties’
Response 7: Thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript.
Point 8: Line 415: ‘further studies are considered that evaluation’
Response 8: Thanks for your comments. We revised the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The article is interesting and the topic is pertinent. To improve the manuscript, the authors should present more background on the subject. The state of knowledge shown is scarce. Additionally, I think that at the end of the manuscript they should show recommendations for future works. The manuscript is not in journal format. Authors must include a discussion chapter. In addition, they must improve and deepen the analysis of the results. On the other hand, I find nothing new. The conclusions are obvious and are the same found in similar studies.
On the other hand, some questions that must be answered within the manuscript are:
What is the difference of the study with respect to other similar ones?
Why did the authors evaluate only properties at high temperatures?
Why did the authors not carry out tests on asphalt mixtures?
Why did the authors carry out such a limited experimental phase? (They only evaluated parameters on modified binders and properties at high temperatures)
Why didn't the authors assess long-term aging?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
The article is interesting and the topic is pertinent. To improve the manuscript, the authors should present more background on the subject[1]. The state of knowledge shown is scarce. Additionally, I think that at the end of the manuscript they should show recommendations for future works [2]. The manuscript is not in journal format. Authors must include a discussion chapter[3]. In addition, they must improve and deepen the analysis of the results. On the other hand, I find nothing new. The conclusions are obvious and are the same found in similar studies [4].
[1] We revised the manuscript.
[2] We revised the Conclusion and Recmmendations.
[3] The format has been revised and we mentioned ‘3. Results and Discussions’.
[4] We revised the introduction, and conclusion and recommendations. In addition, we concluded that the results, including statistical analysis, were comprehensive and aligned with the objectives stated in the title and introduction of the study. The findings and conclusions were derived in accordance with the study's purpose, as highlighted in Point 1 below.
On the other hand, some questions that must be answered within the manuscript are:
Point 1: What is the difference of the study with respect to other similar ones?
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. Based on our study, we made the assumption that the properties of modifiers in RAP would still be present even when RAP is recycled. As a binder evaluation, we verified that these properties were expressed even when the modifier in the RAP was reused, and the statistical results were also satisfied. Moreover, we observed that the MSCR test was effectively evaluated with styrene block copolymer materials, but its evaluation of binders containing various modifiers was limited. Consequently, the findings and insights obtained from this study can guide decision-making processes and contribute to the development of effective strategies for handling and utilizing RAP in the future.
We revised it and briefly stated in the introduction focusing on binder test.
Point 2: Why did the authors evaluate only properties at high temperatures?
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. We focused on evaluating properties at high temperatures in this study for a specific reason. High temperatures have a significant impact on the performance and durability of asphalt pavements. By examining the properties of asphalt binders at high temperatures, this study aimed to assess their performance, providing valuable insights into how the materials behave and perform at high temperatures, allowing for a better understanding of reusing RAP, including modifiers. However, it is worth noting that further studies on properties at low temperatures or other specific conditions are necessary. Therefore, we added a future study.
We revised it and briefly stated in the introduction focusing on binder test.
Point 3: Why did the authors not carry out tests on asphalt mixtures?
Response 3: Thanks for your comments.
Firstly, we focused on evaluating the properties of modifiers in asphalt binders even after reusing them, allowing for a more detailed understanding of their individual behavior and performance. This evaluation helps establish a foundation for future studies and provides valuable insights.
Secondly, conducting tests on asphalt mixtures can be a complex and resource-intensive process. It often involves additional considerations such as aggregate properties, gradation, compaction methods, and performance testing. Secondly, we focused on binder performance because mixture testing often involves additional considerations such as aggregate properties, gradation, compaction methods, and performance testing. Therefore, if we include mixture testing, our research design, which focuses on specific aspects of this study, would result in some limitations or gaps in the overall evaluation.
Lastly, by focusing on the properties of modifiers and binders, this study aimed to establish a basic understanding before expanding the research into the more comprehensive evaluation of asphalt mixtures in future research.
We revised it and briefly stated in the introduction focusing on binder test.
Point 4: Why did the authors carry out such a limited experimental phase? (They only evaluated parameters on modified binders and properties at high temperatures)
Response 4: Thanks for your comments.
We wanted to specifically investigate the influence of modifiers on binder properties and their performance at high temperatures. By narrowing down the experimental phase, they could concentrate on these specific aspects to gain in-depth insights into the behavior and characteristics of modified binders under high-temperature conditions. In addition, we answered three points in the point above.
We also considered noting that a limited experimental phase does not diminish the value or significance of the study. Focusing on specific parameters or conditions, we can provide targeted and valuable insights that contribute to the existing knowledge base and lay the foundation for future studies.
We revised it and briefly stated in the introduction focusing on binder test.
Point 5: Why didn't the authors assess long-term aging?
Response 5: Thanks for your comments.
We used long-term aging for the purpose of simulating the RAP binder. This is because the purpose of the binder sample after long-term aging is to mainly evaluate the fatigue cracking resistance at room temperature. Figure 1 shows the purpose of long-term aging in this study.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
I consider that the article can be published.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title must indicate that the binders are for asphalt. Take off the initials 'PMA'
abstract: change the initials by its complete meaning
Introduction does not include recent bibliography related to scientific documents that use recycled polymers with asphalt
change "sec" and "seconds" by "s"
Figure 3. Add the word "viscosity" to Y axis
line 52. include the definition for the "MSCR" initials and a bibliographic reference
line 66. the same for "RTFO"
line 73. the same for "(PG) 64-22"
Reviewer 2 Report
No new information is presented in the paper. It is difficult to understand paper languages.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deals with the high-temperature properties of recycled PMA binders. The submitted manuscript is lacking on many fronts. Substantial work is required. The method can be improved. The experiments are too simple. Some of the important points are highlighted below. The authors may consider this before resubmission.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
