Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors use the life cycle analysis (PLCA) method to calculate carbon emission of asphalt pavement maintenance, and the energy consumption and carbon emissions of six commonly used asphalt pavement maintenance technologies (TS, HAG, SG, MS, SGS, and MR) in Xinjiang were comprehensively accounted for and analyzed. These works are meaningful.

Although the article lacks sufficient innovation in its research, the research work is of great significance。It is suggested that authors highlight the innovative points of their research work in  the article.

I don't think this topic is original, it merely applies existing methods to calculate and analyze the carbon emissions of six asphalt pavement maintenance technologies in specific regions. However, it may have guiding significance for the road maintenance in this regions.

I haven't seen any outstanding contribution from this article compared with the existing research results.

The author should explain in the article which of the models for calculating carbon emissions and energy consumption and the related parameters are based on existing data and which are determined through argumentation in combination with local conditions. For the final calculation results, the rationality should be analyzed in combination with the existing research achievements.

The conclusion is consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed, although the research conclusions lacked sufficient innovation.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study applies a process-based life cycle assessment methodology, tracking energy and carbon flows across material production, transportation, and maintenance processes. Overall, this paper is well-structured and clearly presented. However, I would like to offer some suggestions for further improvement.

-- The term 'Intelligent' in the title appears disconnected from the paper's content, as this concept is not developed or referenced in the main text. I would recommend either revising the title to better reflect the paper's focus or expanding the discussion to substantiate the current title.".

-- The variable 'E' is used in both Equations (1) and (2), but with different meanings (energy consumption vs. carbon emissions). Consider revising the notation to prevent confusion—either clarify the definitions or use distinct symbols.

-- Equations 2 and 3 are both used to calculate carbon emissions. What are the connections and differences between them? How should we use them in this paper? Please provide a detailed explanation.

-- In Equation 2, "EF" refers to the CEF mentioned in the text?

-- Why do there exist two values of energy dissipation for Coarse aggregates and Fine aggregates in Table 11, while other materials do not have such values?

-- The horizontal and vertical axes in Figure 12 need to be labeled.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have a few questions and suggestions that should be addressed before final acceptance:

1. Please ensure that font styles are consistent across all tables. For instance, the fonts used in Table 2 and Table 4 appear to differ from the others.
2. In Table 1, the meaning of "Design service life/years" and the corresponding "Frequency" is unclear. Additional explanation or definitions would improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with these terms.
3. Please provide references to support the claim that Figure 2 accurately represents the typical roadway lane distribution in the study area.
4. Clarify the rationale for selecting the specific maintenance technologies listed in Table 1. Were these chosen based on prevalence, relevance to local conditions, or other criteria?
5. In Equation (1), the unit of total energy consumption (𝐸) should be explicitly stated

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from further English editing to improve clarity and conciseness, especially by refining expressions like the repeated use of “due to the fact that” and improving transitions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of issues have been addressed, and this paper can be accepted.