Improved Bond Strength Performance of Geopolymer Mortars: Role of High Volume Ground Blast Furnace Slag, Fly Ash, and Palm Oil Fuel Ash Incorporation
, Zahraa J. Hussein 2,3, Ziyad Kubba 4, Bryukhov Mikhail Nikolaevich 5 and Jahangir Mirza 6,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An extensive study on the influence of the incoproration of granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS), fly ash (FA) and palm oil fuel ash (POFA) on strength and durability properties of alkali-activated mortars. The study is suitable for publication after the minor corrections listed below.
1. Although it is quite understandable, explain that AAM is the alkali activated mortar the first time you use AAM.
2. More literature review is expected for the use of POFA in mortars.
3. The bars and magnification in microscopy photos in Fig. 3 are not readable. Same at Fig 18.
4. Make an overall conclusion about the influence of GPFS, FA and POFA and of your study.
5. Line 583 seems to have forgotten question marks.
Author Response
Reviewer' comments are highly appreciated. We have revised the manuscript following to the received comments (Please see the attached file).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled " Improved bond strength performance of alkali-activated mortars: Role of high volume GBFS, FA and POFA incorporation” provided in-depth experimental studies relating to the geopolymer containing GBFS, FA and POFA. The distinguishing performance of bonding strength was assessed and reported. The manuscript was well studied; however, some contents require revisions. These include:
1. Title: it seems current title can be misled. “Geopolymer” should be addressed.
2. Keyword: Add “fly ash” and “palm-oil fuel ash”
3. Line 35: “rapid decline….” This term needs revision
4. Line 56-59: Vast amount of diverse wastes from nature, industries and agricultural sectors (like FA, coals and by-product from burnt oils, bottom ash (BA), POFA, rice husk ash (RHA), 57 bagasse ash (BA), waste glass waste (WG), waste tires (WT), cement dust (CD), waste marble (WM), crushed stones, GBFS, waste ceramics (WC), and so forth) are discarded annu-59 ally as landfills in all developing nations including Malaysia…. Several references are required here.
5. Through repeated studies, an understanding of the mechanism in controlling the alkali activation in mortars has been developed. The references of previous studies of different alkali activated industrial and agricultural waste products should be included. Suggested papers added include:
Ye, Hailong, et al. "Understanding the drying shrinkage performance of alkali-activated slag mortars." Cement and Concrete Composites 76 (2017): 13-24.
Prasittisopin, L., & Trejo, D. (2018). Effects of mixing time and revolution count on characteristics of blended cement containing rice husk ash. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 30(1), 04017262.
Amer, I., Kohail, M., El-Feky, M. S., Rashad, A., & Khalaf, M. A. (2021). Characterization of alkali-activated hybrid slag/cement concrete. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(1), 135-144.
Prasittisopin, L., & Trejo, D. (2013). Characterization of chemical treatment method for rice husk ash cementing materials. Special Publication, 294, 1-14.
Aboulayt, A., Souayfan, F., Roziere, E., Jaafri, R., El Idrissi, A. C., Moussa, R., ... & Loukili, A. (2020). Alkali-activated grouts based on slag-fly ash mixtures: From early-age characterization to long-term phase composition. Construction and Building Materials, 260, 120510.
6. Figures 10: Add 50%; 60%; 70% in the images
7. Figures 17: Add 0%; 20%; 30% in the images
8. Line 583: silicate and lead???. Consequently..Typo here
9. Conclusion: Future recommendations and implications should be discussed.
10. Reference: Some recent references should be added, as suggested above.
11. Line 137: revise to Phoo-ngernkham et al [23]
12. Several misspells still exist.
the manuscript need revision
Author Response
Reviewer' comments are greatly appreciated. We have revised the manuscript following to reviewer' comments, please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file for detailed comments and suggestions of the reviewer.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English language should be revised, in some parts of the text it is not clear what the authors wanted to mean. I suggest to have someone fluent in English to read and correct the manuscript prior to the next submission.
Author Response
Reviewer' comments are highly appreciated, please see the attache file (authors' response to reviewer' comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In general, the manuscript is well written, has interesting results for the readers, and may be published after some revisions. Bellow and on the document attached, there are some suggestions and questions to be answered by authors.
- The abstract could be more precise in addition to some quantified results.
- The introduction is dense and talks about various important topics. But it is needed to be more concise. The studies may be focused on GBFS, FA, and POFA wastes.
- Some statements described in the Materials and Methods section are "waste characterization". This is a result and may be placed in "Results and Discussion". In addition, the methodology of these characterizations should be described.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer' comments are highly appreciated. Following to reviewer' comments, we have revised the manuscript (please see the attached file).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The current version of paper is sastisfied for publication.
Author Response
Reviewer' comment is greatly appreciated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors modified the manuscript accordingly to reviewer's suggestion. I only suggest some further minor revisions before publication.
The abstract should stand alone and be clear and concise, for this reason I suggest to not use many acronyms in this section (they can affect negatively the readability of the paper). in fact, even if the authors reduced their number, there are still many (POFA, FA, GBFS, GPM).
The introduction section is still too long and confusing for the reader. Also the aim and the novelty of the paper are not well presented. Please modify properly the manuscript in order to improve its quality.
English language was revised, but the language quality should need further improvement.
Author Response
Reviewer' comments are highly apprciated. Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
