Sustainable Mortar for Non-Structural Applications Using Alkali Bypass Dust
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has potential but needs some refinement and correction of the English language. All comments are given within the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English language must be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the you for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve significantly the quality of the paper. The paper is revised wherever appropriate and possible according to these comments and suggestions. The responses to the comments are attached in this email.
Kind regards
Dr. Riyadh Alturki
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The title is not straight forward and reflective.
- The paper must be reviewed by a native English speaker in order to correct many mistakes. Rewrite all of the sentences of the paper.
- Abstract section:
The abstract section of the manuscript is not clear and must be rewritten. The authors must pay more attention while writing the abstract part of their manuscript. The first thing that the readers of a paper need to know is a summary of the study and its results. The authors must report the most interesting findings of their research.
- Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your recommendations. Highlight the novelty of your study. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to are. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions?
- Discussion and conclusions clearly do not establish a strong correlation with sustainability/environmental concerns. In your discussion section, please link your empirical results with a broader and deeper literature review.
- The introduction section lacks comprehensive coverage of all relevant aspects of the topic, and fails to provide a scientific report.
- The paper does not present the detailed engineering properties of these materials.
- The description of the experimental investigations and mix proportions is too concise and lacks detail, for example "size and method of curing of specimens, ...."
- There are numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities throughout the manuscript. For example:
-
"The tensile strength should replace with flexural strength" – This sentence is unclear and needs rephrasing for accuracy.
-
In Figure 4, the meaning of "setting time" is not defined or explained.
-
Figure 5 presents compressive strength at 2, 3, 7, and 28 days, whereas Section 2.3.1 only references specimens cured at 3, 7, and 28 days—this inconsistency should be addressed.
-
The size of specimens used for Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity testing is not mentioned.
-
References to standards such as ASTM C349-18, ASTM C1583, and ASTM C597 are incomplete; the corresponding reference numbers are missing.
-
The statement on page 14, lines 342–344, needs clarification:
“Experimental results indicate that replacing 30% cement with ABD in mortar achieves compressive and tensile strengths within the required ranges for both plastering (5–20 MPa) and masonry (meeting ASTM C270 Type O–M).”
- The discussion is not deep and incomplete and lack of scientific analysis. Compare your results and finding with other references.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to thank you for your great feedback and insight.
Please find the responses to your comments attached.
Kind regards,
Dr. Riyadh Alturki
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a valuable study, but there are some issues with the manuscript that the author needs to address and correct:
- More information about the raw materials is required, such as the particle size distribution.
- The testing methods are all referenced. It is recommended to add detailed parameter settings and flowcharts for the key experiments.
- Using ABD to replace cement, a decrease in strength is expected. However, whether ABD has hydration activity or not should be demonstrated through experiments.
- The microscopic reaction mechanism of ABD has not been covered in the article. It is recommended to supplement it by using testing methods such as XRD or DTG.
- Section 3.2.7 is relatively straightforward, and the interrelationship mechanisms among the three should be explained.
- The analysis in the "Practical Significance" section is relatively simple. It is recommended to conduct in-depth discussions by integrating relevant research.
- The figures in the manuscript can reflect the data results, but they are a bit less aesthetically pleasing. It is recommended to further enhance their appearance.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to thank you for your great feedback and insight.
Please find the responses to your comments attached.
Kind regards,
Dr. Riyadh Alturki
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, the authors intended to investigate the possibility of reusing the waste ABD from cement factories. This research is very interesting and provides a significant contribution to the knowledge of this field. Therefore, in my opinion, it can be accepted for publication after some revision. Several comments are given below:
(1) The abstract should be revised. Though the authors have presented the significant scientific significance of this research and the innovative research work carried out in this study, the important quantitative research findings and conclusions were not presented.
(2) When the proportion of ABD replacing cement is too high, it may have a significant adverse effect on many properties of the material, especially significantly reducing its strength. Why did the authors selected such replacement ratios as 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%?
(3) In this study, to study the impact of the ABD on the strength and flow of mortar, mortar mixtures were prepared. Then please provide the mix ratio of mortar.
(4) Please add the related illustration on the impact mechanism of ABD on the setting times of paste mixtures shown in Figure 4.
(5) Figure 3 should be revised. The authors should design the information shown in Figure 3 considering the related research or application of BIM.
(6) From the results of this experiment, it can be seen that, as the substitution rate of ABD in the cement gradually increases, the compressive strength and flexural strength of the specimens are gradually decreasing. What is the mechanism behind this decrease?
(7) The author used Mortar flow to evaluate the flow of mortar. Please illustrate the parameter of “Mortar flow”.
(8) The conclusion at the end of the paper should be written in several items.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the you for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve significantly the quality of the paper. The paper is revised wherever appropriate and possible according to these comments and suggestions. The responses to the comments are attached in this email.
Kind regards
Dr. Riyadh Alturki
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work has improved a lot, but a few more small things need to be corrected, comments are given in the work.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
It has been improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The paper is revised wherever appropriate and possible according to your comments and suggestions. Please find the attached file to find the responses to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorskindly find the attached file for minor revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve significantly the quality of the paper. Please find the attached file containing the response to the comments. Thank you Kind regards Dr. Riyadh.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been thoroughly and accurately revised. I recommend accepting it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve significantly the quality of the paper. Thank you Kind regards Dr. Riyadh.Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be accepted for publication since all the comments have been addressed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions, which helped to improve significantly the quality of the paper. Thank you Kind regards Dr. Riyadh.