Investigation of Flexibility Enhancement Mechanisms and Microstructural Characteristics in Emulsified Asphalt and Latex-Modified Cement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This manuscript contains relevant information to justify the incorporation of emulsified asphalt and XSBRL to enhance the pliability properties of cementitious materials. Based on the review of the document, the following comments have been identified:

1. Line 186: Please correct "Re" and "Fe".
2. The labels in parts (a) and (b) of Figure 13 are repeated and should be revised for clarity.
3. More details should be provided regarding the spectra XRD shown in Figure 15, including the specific material content and curing age corresponding to each spectrum.
4. Line 285: The conjunction "and" should be corrected appropriately based on context.
5. We suggest complementing Figure 17 with EDS analysis to confirm that the features indicated in parts (b) and (c) correspond to emulsified asphalt and XSBRL particles.
6. In Figure 19, please clearly indicate the content levels of emulsified asphalt and XSBRL used in the samples.
7. Lines 317–319: The text should be revised, as Figure 19 does not show increases in the content of emulsified asphalt and XSBRL, which is inconsistent with the current explanation.
8. Lines 341–352: This explanation corresponds to Figure 22, rather than the figure referenced in the original text.
9. Please clarify in the manuscript what information Figure 21 provides (particularly its intended demonstration of the effect of emulsified asphalt and XSBRL content vs. curing time), since the explanation currently included appears to pertain to Figure 22.
10. Lines 348–349: The term "microscopic analysis" should be revised or replaced with a more accurate description of the technique used.

 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors  

The current topic concerning pliability enhancement of cement-based composites using emulsified asphalt and latex is relevant, and the authors provide useful experimental observations. However, several issues require revision and clarification. My detailed comments are as follows:

 

1.The application background is reasonable, and the authors make appropriate efforts to link their work with broader areas of modified cementitious systems. However, the novelty is not clearly established. It is recommended to specify how this work advances beyond existing research, such as:

[1] Influence of CO2 nano-bubble water concentration and curing time on the macroscopic and microscopic mechanical properties of cemented backfill materials;

[2] Dynamic properties and fragmentation mechanism of cemented tailings backfill with various particle size distributions of aggregates.

 

2.Figure 13 appears to be incorrect or mismatched. Please double-check the image content, label, and its caption to ensure consistency with the surrounding discussion.

 

3.In Figure 17(a), the SEM microstructure is partially blocked by overlaid text. It is recommended to reposition the label to the end of the arrow to improve clarity.

 

4.Figure 23 is blurry, making it difficult to read the text and analyze the information. Please replace it with a higher-resolution version.

 

5.In Figure 24(a), the legend shows both blue and green regions marked as C=O in lines 1 and 2. Their distinction is unclear. Similarly, in Figure 24(d), the second line contains a green C=O region that appears equivalent to the red part in line 1. Please clarify why they are treated as separate categories.

 

6.Table 3 lacks visual clarity and aesthetic quality. Consider refining the layout, adjusting column spacing, and aligning text consistently to improve readability.

 

7.There are multiple formatting inconsistencies throughout the article.

①In lines 181–183, the equations are labeled (1), (2), and (3), which are duplicated again for chemical reactions in line 259.

②Additionally, the physical equations use equal signs (e.g., Equations 4–6), whereas chemical reactions use arrows (→) but share numbering with mathematical equations. These should be labeled using distinct formats, such as (Eq.1), (Eq.2) vs. (Rxn.1), (Rxn.2), or similar.

 

8.The SEM results are overly qualitative. It is recommended to add quantitative indicators (e.g., porosity values, average pore size, crack width, or area ratios) extracted through image processing to support the microstructural conclusions.

 

9.Statistical analysis is insufficient. Please include standard deviations or confidence intervals in strength and pliability data, and consider applying ANOVA or t-tests to validate the significance of differences across groups.

 

10.Some language issues remain. Several sentences contain awkward phrasing or grammar errors (e.g., line 237: “the reason for this phenomenon is that the void inside the material was filled” could be revised to “voids within the material are filled, densifying the structure”).

 

11.The manuscript does not adequately discuss the influence of environmental conditions on the performance of modified cement mortars, despite noting this as a limitation (lines 398–400). Please include a discussion on how factors like temperature, humidity, or curing conditions might affect the formation of asphalt/latex films and the resulting mechanical properties, especially given their relevance to pavement applications.

 

12.The study lacks a detailed explanation of the mixing process’s impact on mortar performance. Since the preparation method (lines 141–147) involves specific mixing times and speeds, please elaborate on how variations in mixing parameters (e.g., duration, shear rate) could influence the dispersion of emulsified asphalt/XSBRL and the resulting microstructure or mechanical properties.

 

13.The conclusions (section 5) claim significant improvements in pliability (e.g., 38.9% and 50% for emulsified asphalt and XSBRL, respectively). However, the practical implications for real-world applications (e.g., cost, scalability, or construction feasibility for pavements) are not addressed. Please include a discussion on how these findings translate to practical use in road, bridge, or airport construction.

 

14.The FTIR analysis (section 4.4.2) could be strengthened by quantifying the changes in peak intensities (e.g., for –OH or C=O groups) across different additive contents. Please provide semi-quantitative data (e.g., peak area ratios) to support claims about the interaction between functional groups and cement hydration products.

 

15.The manuscript does not address the long-term durability of the modified mortars. Given the focus on pavement applications, please include a discussion in the "Conclusions and Outlook" section on the potential resistance of emulsified asphalt/XSBRL-modified mortars to environmental factors such as freeze-thaw cycles, moisture ingress, or UV exposure, to highlight their suitability for long-life pavements.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is dedicated to addressing challenges in rigid and semi-flexible pavement construction, with the aim of promoting the development of durable, long-life pavements. I have reviewed the entire manuscript and offer the following major comments for consideration:

 

1. The iThenticate report indicates a high plagiarism rate of 27%, which needs to be significantly reduced.
2. It is highly recommended to thoroughly review the entire manuscript and correct all grammatical and English language errors
3. Abstract: please check and correct the following sentence “A series of insightful experiments and corresponding conclusions were conducted and presented to further demonstrate the feasibility of this new method, as shown below”.
4. Abstract: Replace “3d, 7d, and 28d” by “3, 7, and 28 days”
5. Keywords: Please capitalize the first letter of each keyword.
6. Keywords: replace “Modification mechanism” to “Pliability enhancement mechanism” for clarity and alignment with the abstract and the title.
7. Introduction: please check the following sentence “Semi-rigid and semi-flexible materials have seen significant recent years”
8. Introduction: transitions is missing, introduction needs to be improved.
9. Introduction: The knowledge gap is mentioned; however, it should be more clearly articulated through direct comparison with existing published research. Additionally, the specific benefits and contributions of this study should be explicitly stated to highlight its novelty and practical significance.
10. 2.1: please add the references of all used standards in this section.
11. 2.2: Please add water absorption and specific gravity of the aggregate.
12. 2.2: Although the section title includes "Water," no information is provided about water type, purity, or source of water used in sample preparation.
13. 2.3: please explain why the presence of both benzene rings and carboxyl groups is relevant to the material's interaction with cement hydration.
14. 3.1: Details regarding the ratios and variables are missing; the section only references Table 5 without providing any explanation. Please include a thorough description of the ratios and variables discussed.
15. 3.1: Please check grammar errors.
16. 3.2: This section contains multiple grammatical errors and awkward expressions.
17. 3.3: English need to be improved.
18. 3.3: The procedure should be clearly separated into two parts: First part: flexural testing procedure and the second part for compressive testing procedure.
19. 4.1: The results presented in Figures 8–10 are referenced; however, each figure should be briefly discussed individually to clarify their output.
20. 4.1: some sentences lack clarity and should be more precisely stated. For example, the sentence 'Flowability is an important metric...' is too vague and needs to be elaborated with specific context and explanation.
21. 4.3.2: define the abbreviations ‘AFt’ and ‘SBR’ for clarity.
22. 4.3.2: Please explain the implications of observing Ca(OH)₂ plates, C-S-H gel, or ettringite in cementitious materials, specifically regarding their effects on strength, durability, and pliability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript entitled "Investigation of Pliability Enhancement Mechanism and Microscopic Structure of Emulsified Asphalt and Latex Modified Cement." The authors have adequately addressed my major comments and concerns. I am satisfied with the revisions, and I believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Author Response

感谢您的友好认可和坚定不移的支持。我们祝愿您在所有专业领域继续取得成功。