Eco-Efficient Artificial Stones Produced Using Quartzite Quarry Waste and Vegetable Resin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript „Eco-efficient engineered stones produced using quartzite quarry waste and vegetable resin", the authors investigated the possibility of the development of engineered stones with waste from the ornamental stone extraction process, from the quarry, and vegetable polyurethane resin derived from castor oil in order to analyze its viability in the production of engineered stone slabs.

The theme is novel and scientifically sound. The abstract is informative. The manuscript is well written and conceptualized. The methodology applied is adequate. There are no errors of fact or logic. Results and discussions are well connected. Written text is understandable and readable. The figures are of good quality.

Specific comments:

• In the title, ’engineered’ stones could be replaced with ’artificial’ or ’tailor made’
• Key words should represent what investigations are conducted in the manuscript, not just what is already written in the title.
• In the introduction, authors should present the global state of the art, not just a case study of Brazil.
• Table 1: grain-size distribution curve would be more helpful than the table.
• Page 3/ line 131: The term 'mix-design' is more suitable than ’mixture planning’.
• The results presented in Table 2 are not really clear. Please elaborate on them.
• Please provide a more substantial characterization of vegetable polyurethane resin.
• Formulas for physico-mechanical properties are not necessary. Please provide the standard according to which the examination was conducted. Alternatively, do describe the method.
• Can instrumental methods be placed in one chapter? There is no need to divide instrumental methods for raw materials and instrumental methods for products. Just describe which method is employed for which sample.
• Subchapter 3.1 (Characterization of raw materials) belongs to the Materials and Methods chapter. It would be better to present results in Chapter 2 and discuss them in Chapter 3 prior to the analysis of artificial stone.
• Chapter 3.2. Simplex-lattice mix design analysis really does not belong in the Results Chapter.
• The discussion on the physicho-mechanical properties of artificial stone and subsequent instrumental analyses is very lengthy. It should be more elaborate.
• Conclusions should be rearranged and rewritten accordingly.
• The English language should be improved. The text should be checked by an English-speaking native speaker or legal proofreader. Also, the writing style should be somewhat improved.
• The literature is adequate and up-to-date. There are no excessive self-quotations.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• The English language should be improved. The text should be checked by an English-speaking native speaker or legal proofreader. Also, the writing style should be somewhat improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The main requested modifications are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work conducted by Mariane Costalonga de Aguiar et al. performed a detailed characterization on ornamental stone samples from quarry and vegetable polyurethane resin from castor oil to explore the possibility to make engineered stones slabs. Despite several detailed issues in the article, with minor revisions and a few additional experiments, it can still be published in Sustainability:

1. Provide a more detailed discussion on the differences between the three samples used in this study or consider merging results into one panel for each technique, accompanied by error bars to enhance clarity.

2. Elaborate on the significance of having IR data for the mixture sample. Explain how this information contributes to the overall understanding of the study.

3. Include Infrared (IR) spectra for the final product. This addition will provide a comprehensive view of the chemical composition and further strengthen your analysis.

4. In Figure 13, consider adding X-ray Diffraction (XRD) data from ornamental stone samples. This inclusion will allow for a direct comparison with the final product and contribute to a more comprehensive interpretation of the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The main requested modifications are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and well prepared. However, it needs to be corrected and improved to make it more clear. The comments I presented below.

 1.      What does the symbol [#] in Table 1 mean?

2.      Table 2 – there is no unit which could characterize granulometric proportions. Therefore it is difficult to understand what is large, medium and fine.

3.      Section ”2.2.3. Characterization of manufactured engineered Stones” – several formulas are presented here, from which apparent density, apparent porosity, water absorption, three-point bending strength and resistive strain are calculated. These parameters were calculated for only one experiment (Table 6) ?

4.      Lines 320 and 326 – the quartz chemical formula should be ”SiO₂” not ”SiO2”. It must be corrected.

5.      Table 5 – there is the question as for Table 2. What is large, medium and fine? The unit is only posted for apparent density.

6.      Figure 12 caption – the sentence ”Thin petrographic section of engineered stone from experiment 7 with parallel 541 and cross polarized and 5x magnification objective lens.” is not clear. Was the microscopic photograph done using parallel or crossed nicoles?

The corrections according to the comments presented above should be introduced into manucript to make it more clear. Authors should specify some information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The main requested modifications are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors corrected text and answered the questions from the review. The manuscript can be accepted for publication.