Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript reports of research on the use of cement by-pass dust as a additive to alkali-activated material. This type of waste has the disadvantage that its chemical composition is difficult and changeable. The results are not particularly innovative but have first of all practical value. Obtained results are clearly important for the environment protection. Review of related literature is quite well developed and provides a good introduction to the experimental part. In my opinion, the article is briefly prepared. Especially, I would recommend following points to the attention of the authors:

– XRD results should be shown in a clearer form. Present Figures 1 and 2 are illegible and use up a lot of space unnecessarily.

– Are the authors sure that there is α-quartz in the ash?

– Table 2 lists the phases that are not present in the tested sample – what for?

– Details of most instrumental technique (XRD, IR, thermal analysis, etc) are not included.

– The font on the thermal analysis results (fig. 6–8) is too small.

– Line 461 – not 8500 cm^–1, but 875.

– Why the line 472 listed different band positions attributed to carbonates than line 461?

The above observations do not allow the reviewer to recommend the paper in its current form for publication, however I can recommend its publication after major revisions.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The response to the individual points of the review is in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The report style of the article makes it hard to judge what is the novelty or true scientific meaning of this work.  This could be improved by a better structure and presenting the interpretation-evaluation the findings of this paper.

1.The novelty of the paper should be stressed: what is really new with respect to the state of the art.

2.Lack of fineness and heavy metals of CBPD. What influence of the heavy metals and fineness in the mortars? The author does not elaborate the implications/why/how toxification of the CBPD

3.The chlorine content in CBPD is 10.49%. How did you determine the Cl- of mortar /concrete？

4.Lack of thermal analysis of CBPD. The LOI is 21.9% for CBPD. The weight loss curve shows a release of low-temperature water in the area of 0-200°C and slowly releasing water in the area of 200–600°C. It is confused.

5.The description of the choice of the w/c is not clear. Please provide the reason.

6.The authors in describe that water in inorganic materials such as alkali-activated materials (geopolymers) is present in several forms. Some explanations are too speculative. Please provide some theories or compare the results with previous researches.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The response to the individual points of the review is in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have followed or commented on all reviewers' comments. Therefore, please consider the manuscript for publication.