Improving the Sustainability of Reinforced Concrete Structures Through the Adoption of Eco-Friendly Flooring Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors''A review of Improving the sustainability of Reinforced Concrete Structures through the adoption of Eco-Friendly Flooring Systems. We extend our gratitude to the researchers for their valuable efforts in providing an in-depth study that contributes to enhancing the sustainability of reinforced concrete structures through the analysis of eco-friendly flooring systems.
- Scope of the Study and Its Limitations: The paper focuses on carbon emissions in concrete flooring systems only. The scope should be expanded to include a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) that covers all environmental aspects, such as operational energy consumption, water impacts, and construction waste.
- Data and Assumptions: The accuracy of the data and its verification process were not clarified. A detailed explanation of data collection and validation methodology should be added.
- Generality and Specificity: The results may not be generalizable to all geographical regions. The study should include an analysis of how different geographic locations might affect the results and offer recommendations based on these variables.
- Economic Cost: The paper focuses on environmental aspects but lacks discussion of the economic cost. A cost-benefit analysis should be included to assess the economic feasibility of the proposed systems and their alignment with available budgets.
- Practical Recommendations: The recommendations were general. The study should include a practical guide or case study showing how to implement these recommendations in real-world projects, assisting engineers in effective solution implementation.
- Social Impact: The social impacts of these systems were not discussed. An analysis of the social impacts and potential benefits of using eco-friendly flooring systems on worker health, safety, and the community should be added.
- Scientific Methodology: The scientific methodology was not explained in sufficient detail. A clear and detailed explanation of the methodology used for data analysis and decision-making is needed to ensure transparency in the research process.
- Future Review: The paper did not offer a clear plan for future research. A section outlining future trends and research that could improve the sustainability of concrete flooring systems should be added to guide further studies.
English Quality could be improved
Author Response
comment 1 : [A review of Improving the sustainability of Reinforced Concrete Structures through the adoption of Eco-Friendly Flooring Systems. We extend our gratitude to the researchers for their valuable efforts in providing an in-depth study that contributes to enhancing the sustainability of reinforced concrete structures through the analysis of eco-friendly flooring systems.]
Response 1 : [Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable feedback. We sincerely appreciate your effort in assessing our work and providing constructive comments that will help improve the quality of our paper.]
comment 2 : [Scope of the Study and Its Limitations: The paper focuses on carbon emissions in concrete flooring systems only. The scope should be expanded to include a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) that covers all environmental aspects, such as operational energy consumption, water impacts, and construction waste.]
Response 2 : [We acknowledge that this study primarily focuses on carbon emissions in concrete flooring systems. As structural engineers, our primary goal is to explore structural factors that significantly impact environmental sustainability by optimizing material usage. In this review article, we are collecting and analyzing data from various types of concrete flooring systems to identify the one with the lowest embodied carbon.]
comment 3 : [Data and Assumptions: The accuracy of the data and its verification process were not clarified. A detailed explanation of data collection and validation methodology should be added.]
Response 3 : [We would like to clarify that this manuscript is a review article, and as such, the data presented is sourced from previously published research and peer-reviewed studies. While we do not generate or validate primary data in this work, every statement made is supported by appropriate references to ensure accuracy and reliability.]
comment 4 : [Generality and Specificity: The results may not be generalizable to all geographical regions. The study should include an analysis of how different geographic locations might affect the results and offer recommendations based on these variables.]
Response 4 : [The study currently gathers data on different types of flooring systems as a foundational step in our research. While the current scope does not yet include regional variability, our next phase will involve selecting the flooring system with the lowest embodied carbon for further investigation in a specific location with defined material specifications. This will ensure a more tailored analysis that accounts for geographical differences.]
comment 5 : [Economic Cost: The paper focuses on environmental aspects but lacks discussion of the economic cost. A cost-benefit analysis should be included to assess the economic feasibility of the proposed systems and their alignment with available budgets.]
Response 5 : [We agree that a cost-benefit analysis would provide valuable insights. However, this paper primarily focuses on reviewing previous studies on embodied carbon in flooring systems. The optimization of material usage inherently leads to cost reduction, but a detailed economic feasibility study will be conducted in future work when selecting and refining the most sustainable flooring system.]
comment 6 : [Practical Recommendations: The recommendations were general. The study should include a practical guide or case study showing how to implement these recommendations in real-world projects, assisting engineers in effective solution implementation.]
Response 6 : [This study compiles and synthesizes previous research on various flooring systems to identify trends in embodied carbon for different span lengths. The findings highlight which flooring types are more environmentally favorable for short, medium, and long spans. We acknowledge that practical recommendations could be further developed, and we plan to include a case study or implementation guide in our subsequent research.]
comment 7 : [Social Impact: The social impacts of these systems were not discussed. An analysis of the social impacts and potential benefits of using eco-friendly flooring systems on worker health, safety, and the community should be added.]
Response 7 : [While this study does not specifically address social impacts, we acknowledge their importance. The optimization of structural materials not only reduces environmental harm but also enhances worker safety and construction efficiency.]
comment 8 : [Scientific Methodology: The scientific methodology was not explained in sufficient detail. A clear and detailed explanation of the methodology used for data analysis and decision-making is needed to ensure transparency in the research process.]
Response 8 : [We appreciate this comment and will ensure that our methodology section provides a clearer and more detailed explanation of our data collection and analysis process. In this study, we analyze different types of slabs with varying span lengths to compare their embodied carbon content. A more comprehensive description of our methodology will be included to enhance transparency and reproducibility.]
comment 9 : [Future Review: The paper did not offer a clear plan for future research. A section outlining future trends and research that could improve the sustainability of concrete flooring systems should be added to guide further studies.]
Response 9 : [As demonstrated in this review, two-way joist slabs exhibit the lowest embodied carbon among conventional flooring systems, aside from prefabricated and prestressed solutions. Based on these findings, our next phase will involve nonlinear analysis of this flooring type in multi-story structures using ABAQUS. The goal is to further optimize the design to minimize material usage while maintaining structural efficiency and sustainability.]
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter a thorough review of the manuscript, I believe that it presents a relevant and timely discussion on improving the sustainability of reinforced concrete structures through eco-friendly flooring systems. However, several critical issues need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication in MDPI Sustainability.
-
Excessive References. There are too much. The manuscript currently contains 293 references, with 75 references in the introduction alone. This is excessive and needs to be substantially reduced. Many references appear redundant or used in citation chains. The authors should retain only the most relevant and recent sources that directly support their arguments.
-
Section 4.5, which discusses the use of recycled materials (e.g., recycled aggregates, fly ash, supplementary cementitious materials), does not address the risks and limitations associated with these materials. The authors should include a discussion on:
- Potential durability concerns (e.g., reduced strength, increased permeability).
- Possible contamination risks from recycled materials.
- Supply chain and availability challenges for SCMs like fly ash and slag.
- Variations in the chemical composition and properties of byproducts such as fly ash, FC3R, and others wich are usullay utilized as supplementary cementitious materials.
- Long-term environmental trade-offs associated with waste incorporation.
-
The conclusion section is too brief and does not sufficiently highlight the key findings of the study. The authors should:
- Summarize the most significant results from their analysis.
- Provide a clear comparison of the different flooring systems in terms of their embodied carbon impact.
- Offer practical recommendations for engineers and policymakers.
To sum up, the study is well-structured and provides valuable insights into the embodied carbon impact of different reinforced concrete flooring systems. The novelty of the research lies in its comparative analysis of various floor systems and its potential to inform low-carbon construction practices. However, it does not introduce entirely new methodologies or groundbreaking findings, and its primary contribution is applied rather than theoretical.
Therefore, I recommend major revisions before reconsideration for publication.
Author Response
comment 1 : [After a thorough review of the manuscript, I believe that it presents a relevant and timely discussion on improving the sustainability of reinforced concrete structures through eco-friendly flooring systems. However, several critical issues need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication in MDPI Sustainability.]
Response 1 : [Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable feedback. We sincerely appreciate your effort in assessing our work and providing constructive comments that will help improve the quality of our paper.]
comment 2 : [Excessive References. There are too much. The manuscript currently contains 293 references, with 75 references in the introduction alone. This is excessive and needs to be substantially reduced. Many references appear redundant or used in citation chains. The authors should retain only the most relevant and recent sources that directly support their arguments.]
Response 2 : [Regarding the concern about the number of references, we would like to clarify that this study is a review paper. In order to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data, we have referenced a wide range of studies to cover various aspects of the topic. However, we acknowledge your concern about excessive citations and will carefully revise the reference list, retaining only the most relevant and recent sources that directly support our arguments.]
comment 3 : [Section 4.5, which discusses the use of recycled materials (e.g., recycled aggregates, fly ash, supplementary cementitious materials), does not address the risks and limitations associated with these materials. The authors should include a discussion on:
-
- Potential durability concerns (e.g., reduced strength, increased permeability).
- Possible contamination risks from recycled materials.
- Supply chain and availability challenges for SCMs like fly ash and slag.
- Variations in the chemical composition and properties of byproducts such as fly ash, FC3R, and others wich are usullay utilized as supplementary cementitious materials.
- Long-term environmental trade-offs associated with waste incorporation.]
Response 3 : [Concerning Section 4.5 and the discussion on recycled materials, we would like to clarify that the primary purpose of this paper is to compare the amount of embodied carbon in different flooring systems. The discussion in Section 4 is focused on Embodied Carbon Mitigation Strategies in Reinforced Concrete Structures as an introductory explanation rather than an in-depth analysis of the risks and limitations of recycled materials. However, we appreciate your suggestion and will consider incorporating a brief mention of these aspects for clarity.]
comment 4 : [The conclusion section is too brief and does not sufficiently highlight the key findings of the study. The authors should:
- Summarize the most significant results from their analysis.
- Provide a clear comparison of the different flooring systems in terms of their embodied carbon impact.
- Offer practical recommendations for engineers and policymakers.]
Response 4 : [We appreciate your observation regarding the conclusion section. We will revise it to provide a more comprehensive summary of the key findings, including a clearer comparison of the different flooring systems in terms of their embodied carbon impact.]
comment 5 : [To sum up, the study is well-structured and provides valuable insights into the embodied carbon impact of different reinforced concrete flooring systems. The novelty of the research lies in its comparative analysis of various floor systems and its potential to inform low-carbon construction practices. However, it does not introduce entirely new methodologies or groundbreaking findings, and its primary contribution is applied rather than theoretical.]
Response 5 : [Finally, we are grateful for your insightful comments on the novelty of our research. We acknowledge that this study primarily contributes to applied research rather than introducing groundbreaking methodologies. The development of new methodologies and innovative findings will be the focus of our future research, which we are currently working on.]
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript explores the most environmentally sustainable reinforced concrete (RC) slab system, to reduce the carbon emissions associated with various slab systems, including solid, voided slabs and precast floor systems the compressive strength (CS), split tensile strength (STS), and flexural strength (FS) of the RPC. However, there are significant comments that could enhance the manuscript.
- The literature review needs to be updated
Strength Enhancement of Interlocking Hollow Brick Masonry Walls with Low-Cost Mortar and Wire Mesh. In Infrastructures (Vol. 6, Issue 12, p. 166). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6120166
Finite Element Analysis of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-(GFRP) Reinforced Continuous Concrete Beams. In Polymers (Vol. 13, Issue 24, p. 4468). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13244468
- Please add the Standard deviation and coefficient of variation for the results.
- The types of materials used (likewise the ingredients properties of concrete)
- Is it possible to include recycled materials as well?
- What was the purpose of the research to see the resistance moment that can be sustained by the different types of slabs at a lower thickness is this the significance of the research please state clearly.
- Add the other details of the specific gravity and other properties of the materials used because also ingredients would differ from country to country and it should be included with the Average margin and Standard deviation.
- Did the author encounter the durability of those slab types in the long term (life cycle span as dedicated in the introduction of the research)
- How do the authors represent such an idea using FE
- The conclusion should be updated with the amended changes and must be clear with the limitations of the study for instance what was not included in the parameters studied.
Author Response
Comment 1 : [The manuscript explores the most environmentally sustainable reinforced concrete (RC) slab system, to reduce the carbon emissions associated with various slab systems, including solid, voided slabs and precast floor systems the compressive strength (CS), split tensile strength (STS), and flexural strength (FS) of the RPC. However, there are significant comments that could enhance the manuscript.]
Response 1 : [Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable feedback. We sincerely appreciate your effort in assessing our work and providing constructive comments that will help improve the quality of our paper.]
Comment 2 : [Please add the Standard deviation and coefficient of variation for the results.]
Response 2 : [I appreciate your suggestion to include the Standard Deviation (SD) and Coefficient of Variation (CV) in the results. However, for most span lengths, there is only a single data point available. As a result, calculating SD and CV would not provide meaningful statistical insight in these cases.]
Comment 3 : [The types of materials used (likewise the ingredients properties of concrete)]
Response 3 : [As this study is a review paper, each dataset originates from different sources using various concrete types. Therefore, it is not feasible to provide specific details about the material properties for all the models included in the study.]
Comment 4 : [Is it possible to include recycled materials as well?]
Response 4 : [Since this study aims to compare the embodied carbon of different floor types, the primary focus is on their overall environmental impact rather than material-specific analysis. However, Section 4.5 summarizes previous research that includes recycled materials and their role in embodied carbon reduction.]
Comment 5 : [What was the purpose of the research to see the resistance moment that can be sustained by the different types of slabs at a lower thickness is this the significance of the research please state clearly.]
Response 5 : [The main objective of this comparative study is to evaluate different floor types for various span lengths. This research serves as the initial phase of a more comprehensive study that will ultimately determine the most optimal floor system in terms of embodied carbon for each span length.]
Comment 6 : [Add the other details of the specific gravity and other properties of the materials used because also ingredients would differ from country to country and it should be included with the Average margin and Standard deviation.]
Response 6 : [We acknowledge your concern that material properties differ across regions. However, given the large number of data points and diverse models included in this study, it would be impractical to provide detailed material compositions for each case.]
Comment 7 : [Did the author encounter the durability of those slab types in the long term (life cycle span as dedicated in the introduction of the research)]
Response 7 : [While the primary focus of this study is on embodied carbon comparisons, we recognize the importance of durability considerations in the long-term lifecycle assessment of slabs. Future studies will explore the durability aspects in greater detail, particularly regarding material degradation, maintenance requirements, and service life predictions.]
Comment 8 : [How do the authors represent such an idea using FE]
Response 8 : [For our future research on slab optimization, we plan to utilize finite element analysis (FEA) in ABAQUS and compare the results with linear analyses conducted in SAFE and ETABS. However, in this review paper, we have focused solely on collecting and comparing data from existing studies rather than conducting independent finite element simulations.]
Comment 9 : [The conclusion should be updated with the amended changes and must be clear with the limitations of the study for instance what was not included in the parameters studied.]
Response 9 : [Thank you for your suggestion. We will revise and update the conclusion to reflect the necessary amendments and clearly outline the study's limitations, including aspects that were not covered in the current analysis.]
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) There are 30 pages' contents in the journal format besides cited references list, and it's really quite long as a journal article rather than a book chapter. This study discussed the carbon emissions associated with different floor systems, while 19 pages were occupied before formal comparative analysis on different slab systems. Please refine and shorten the manuscript.
(2) Is there any other review paper discussed on the topic of floor types in concrete structures concerning embodied carbon emissions? what's the difference between this study and other reviewing study? Please present the research gap in the end of the section 1.
(3) After introducing the carbon emissions of different floor systems in the section 5, the manuscript presented these 8 systems' mean embodied carbon values in the first paragraph in the 6 section. How did the authors deal with the different dimensions of these floor structures? Could you please give a calculating example using one of the floor systems? The reviewer see the relevant data were come from some journal papers, such as references 288-290, is the data resource authoritative, and is there any reinforced concrete structures standard or specification can supply data of CO2 emission for floor systems?
(4) Please change the mechanisms' label forms in section 6.2 form such as "1." to "i)" or "a)" to distinguish from the chapters' numbering
Author Response
comment 1 : [There are 30 pages' contents in the journal format besides cited references list, and it's really quite long as a journal article rather than a book chapter. This study discussed the carbon emissions associated with different floor systems, while 19 pages were occupied before formal comparative analysis on different slab systems. Please refine and shorten the manuscript.]
Response 1 : [As this is a review paper, we have included an extensive range of studies to ensure data accuracy and provide a comprehensive analysis of the topic. However, we acknowledge your concern regarding the length of the manuscript. We will review the content and refine it accordingly to make it more concise while maintaining the necessary depth of discussion.]
comment 2 : [Is there any other review paper discussed on the topic of floor types in concrete structures concerning embodied carbon emissions? what's the difference between this study and other reviewing study? Please present the research gap in the end of the section 1.]
Response 2 : [Based on our knowledge and research, we have not found any existing review paper that comprehensively compares 8 different floor types in concrete structures concerning embodied carbon emissions. In our study, we provide a comparative analysis of these 8 floor systems across different span lengths. We will clarify this research gap at the end of Section 1 to highlight the unique contribution of our study.]
comment 3 : [After introducing the carbon emissions of different floor systems in the section 5, the manuscript presented these 8 systems' mean embodied carbon values in the first paragraph in the 6 section. How did the authors deal with the different dimensions of these floor structures? Could you please give a calculating example using one of the floor systems? The reviewer see the relevant data were come from some journal papers, such as references 288-290, is the data resource authoritative, and is there any reinforced concrete structures standard or specification can supply data of CO2 emission for floor systems?]
Response 3 : [Due to the review nature of this article, only the span length of concrete structures and the type of flooring system have been considered. The data were collected from existing literature and then compared. In our next project, which is currently underway for the UK, we will conduct a detailed calculation and comparison, where material types, building use, and other specifications will be explicitly defined. Regarding the data sources, we have ensured that they come from peer-reviewed journal papers and authoritative references.]
comment 4 : [Please change the mechanisms' label forms in section 6.2 form such as "1." to "i)" or "a)" to distinguish from the chapters' numbering]
Response 4 : [Thank you for your observation. We will revise the labeling format to distinguish it from the chapter numbering, as per your suggestion.]
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed all revewer's comments. The manuscript could be accepted in the current format.
Author Response
comment 1 : [The authors addressed all revewer's comments. The manuscript could be accepted in the current format.]
Response 1 : [We sincerely appreciate your time and expertise in evaluating our manuscript. Thank you for acknowledging that we have successfully addressed all comments and for recommending our manuscript for acceptance in its current format. Your valuable feedback throughout this process has significantly improved the quality of our work. We are grateful for your thoughtful review and constructive guidance.]
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRegarding my review of the revised manuscript titled "Improving the Sustainability of Reinforced Concrete Structures through the Adoption of Eco-Friendly Flooring Systems", upon reviewing the second version of the manuscript, I have found that it is identical to the original submission, with no changes implemented. This contradicts the authors' responses, in which they stated that they had made modifications.
This suggests that there may have been an error in document submission, and the authors may have accidentally uploaded the original version instead of the corrected one.
Given that the requested revisions have not been incorporated, my recommendation remains a major revision. I would appreciate it if the authors could verify whether the correct revised manuscript has been uploaded and, if necessary, submit the correct version.
I remain fully available to review the updated document once the appropriate corrections have been made.
Author Response
comment 1 : [Regarding my review of the revised manuscript titled "Improving the Sustainability of Reinforced Concrete Structures through the Adoption of Eco-Friendly Flooring Systems", upon reviewing the second version of the manuscript, I have found that it is identical to the original submission, with no changes implemented. This contradicts the authors' responses, in which they stated that they had made modifications.
This suggests that there may have been an error in document submission, and the authors may have accidentally uploaded the original version instead of the corrected one.
Given that the requested revisions have not been incorporated, my recommendation remains a major revision. I would appreciate it if the authors could verify whether the correct revised manuscript has been uploaded and, if necessary, submit the correct version.
I remain fully available to review the updated document once the appropriate corrections have been made.]
Response 1 : [Thank you very much for your thorough review and for drawing our attention to the file discrepancy. We sincerely apologize for the oversight in uploading an incorrect file. We have now carefully reviewed and incorporated all of your comments, as well as those from the other reviewers, into the manuscript.]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors responded to all the comments
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI am not qualified to judge the English
Author Response
comment 1 : [The authors responded to all the comments]
Response 1 : [We sincerely appreciate your time and expertise in evaluating our manuscript. Thank you for acknowledging that we have successfully addressed all comments and for recommending our manuscript for acceptance in its current format. Your valuable feedback throughout this process has significantly improved the quality of our work. We are grateful for your thoughtful review and constructive guidance.]
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) Due to the marked revision version of the updated manuscript was not provided, the reviewer compare the V.1 manuscript and the V.2 manuscript, and it is found that the new Figure 13 was added and the label forms in section 6.2 were revised followed the reviewer's Comment 4, while no other revisions else were made in the manuscript. In this case, the reviewer quite doubt the mentioned statement in Response 1: "We will review the content and refine it accordingly to make it more concise".
(2) For Response 2, the reviewer do not see the research gap that the author mentioned at the end of Section 1, in this case, the reviewer quite doubt the mentioned statement in Response 2." We will clarify this research gap at the end of Section 1 to highlight the unique contribution of our study."
(3) The reviewer think that the COMMENT 3 is the most important question to decide whether this study is rigorous, convincible, and scientific. The author only added a Figure 13 with no other explanations in the manuscript. No simple calculating example was provided to support the data in this study.
Author Response
comment 1 : [(1) Due to the marked revision version of the updated manuscript was not provided, the reviewer compare the V.1 manuscript and the V.2 manuscript, and it is found that the new Figure 13 was added and the label forms in section 6.2 were revised followed the reviewer's Comment 4, while no other revisions else were made in the manuscript. In this case, the reviewer quite doubt the mentioned statement in Response 1: "We will review the content and refine it accordingly to make it more concise".]
Response 1 : [Thank you very much for your thorough review and for drawing our attention to the file discrepancy. We sincerely apologize for the oversight in uploading an incorrect file. We have now carefully reviewed and incorporated all of your comments, as well as those from the other reviewers, into the manuscript.]
comment 2 : [(2) For Response 2, the reviewer do not see the research gap that the author mentioned at the end of Section 1, in this case, the reviewer quite doubt the mentioned statement in Response 2." We will clarify this research gap at the end of Section 1 to highlight the unique contribution of our study."]
Response 2 : [Thank you for your feedback. We understand the concern about the research gap not being clearly articulated. We will revise Section 2 (not Section 1 as mistakenly mentioned in our previous response) to explicitly highlight the following research gaps:
- While there are studies examining embodied carbon in individual floor systems, our literature review reveals a lack of comprehensive comparative studies that evaluate multiple concrete floor types (specifically the 8 types in our study) across various span lengths with a focus on embodied carbon emissions.
- Existing reviews typically focus on either a limited number of floor systems or address broader sustainability aspects without detailed quantitative comparisons of embodied carbon across different span ranges.]
comment 3 : [(3) The reviewer think that the COMMENT 3 is the most important question to decide whether this study is rigorous, convincible, and scientific. The author only added a Figure 13 with no other explanations in the manuscript. No simple calculating example was provided to support the data in this study.]
Response 3 : [You raise important questions about our methodology for comparing carbon emissions across different floor systems.
To address your concerns about the different dimensions of floor structures: Our paper is a comprehensive review that collects and synthesizes carbon emission data from previously published studies in authoritative journals. We did not perform original calculations but rather compiled existing data from the literature. The mean embodied carbon values presented in Section 6 were extracted directly from the cited references, which had already normalized their values to kg CO2e/m² of floor area.
Each original study we referenced employed their own methodologies to account for dimensional differences. Most commonly, the original researchers normalized their results by functional unit (typically per m² of floor area) while ensuring equivalent structural performance (similar spans and loading capacities) across different systems.
Regarding the data sources: The values were compiled exclusively from peer-reviewed publications in established journals such as Journal of Cleaner Production, Building and Environment, and Construction and Building Materials. We specifically selected studies that followed robust methodologies and used recognized emission factor databases.]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed my comments in an almost satisfactory manner. However, I still believe that the number of citations is excessive, even for a review article. Nevertheless, I will not oppose the publication of the paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is in good shape and is now ready for publication.
