Investigation of Pozzolan Activity, Chemical and Granulometric Composition of Micro- and Nanosilicon of the Bratsk Ferroalloy Plant

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer suggests supplementing and presenting a more type of research, the choice of which should depend on the intended use of the tested material.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English Language is correct.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your work and recommendations.

We corrected the paper.

Line 128. In Table 3, the term "Dust sample" is used. It would be beneficial to use - The type of dust sample. %.

Agree, corrected

Lines 133- 136. The authors did not comment on the values obtained by individual elements in oxide form, limiting themselves to a general statement. For example, how the content of SiO2, CaO, Fe2O3, Al2O3, and the content of alkaline elements, including heavy metals, can affect the behavior of the tested material, e.g., in the case of use as an additive to concrete or the other materials. Does the given composition of the tested materials meet the guidelines of the standards (what) that allow them to be approved for use in materials?

Agree, corrected
Line 180. Table 4. The Reviewer suggests converting the presented values regarding percentage accumulation into a percentage of the share of grain diameters in the total mass in the tested samples. The data presented in the table are not very legible. The values given in Table 4 were limited to 10 µm. Does this mean no larger particle diameter in the tested samples (the values do not constitute 100%)? How can the degree of fragmentation affect the behavior of the tested material when used in different materials?

Agree, corrected
Lines 184-231. The authors have determined the suitability of the tested materials based on the literature of other researchers. However, the presented results were limited to providing the chemical composition, including X-ray analysis and granulometric analysis. It would be beneficial to perform a comprehensive analysis by conducting tests such as microscopic study (SEM) – the view of structure grain, thermal analysis—TG/DTG, or determining the specific surface area. These tests provide important information in determining the suitability of the materials as building materials.

Agree, corrected
Lines 232 – 241. The type of planned research should depend on the potential application of the tested materials. The Authors do not provide or justify in which field the tested material will be used.

Agree, corrected

Best regards, authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      The abstract should be able to stand on its own. The authors should revise the results to focus on more quantitative data and the originality of the study, away from general judgements.

2.      The explanation indicated in orange in Figure 3 should be added.

3.      The Introduction section is written in a disorganised manner. The authors are advised to revise this section and emphasise the importance of their research in the last paragraph. What is unique about the study of the applicability of silica from the Bratsk Ferroslav Plant? What solutions does this research offer us?

4.      Figure 5 contains foreign characters other than English and should be revised.

5.      Results and discussion section is presented in a very superficial way.

6.      Conclusion section is too short and does not emphasise the originality of the study and the key points made.

7.      The authors have obtained findings throughout the article and interpreted them with known inferences. The overall structure of the article lacks originality and should be improved.

8. Although article number 55 is mentioned in the text, there is no information about this article in the References section. The references should be revised and erroneous parts should be corrected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your work and recommendations.

We corrected the paper.

1. The abstract should be able to stand on its own. The authors should revise the results to focus on more quantitative data and the originality of the study, away from general judgements.

Agree, corrected

2. The explanation indicated in orange in Figure 3 should be added.

Agree, corrected

3. The Introduction section is written in a disorganised manner. The authors are advised to revise this section and emphasise the importance of their research in the last paragraph. What is unique about the study of the applicability of silica from the Bratsk Ferroslav Plant? What solutions does this research offer us?

Agree, corrected

4. Figure 5 contains foreign characters other than English and should be revised.

Agree, corrected

5. Results and discussion section is presented in a very superficial way.

Agree, corrected

6. Conclusion section is too short and does not emphasise the originality of the study and the key points made.

Agree, corrected

7. The authors have obtained findings throughout the article and interpreted them with known inferences. The overall structure of the article lacks originality and should be improved.

Agree, corrected

8. Although article number 55 is mentioned in the text, there is no information about this article in the References section. The references should be revised and erroneous parts should be corrected.

Agree, corrected

Best regards, authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title Revision: The title should encapsulate the key properties investigated in the study. Were these properties related to chemical composition or mechanical strength? Please ensure the title reflects this information accurately.

Language and Clarity: The manuscript's language is often ambiguous and lacks clarity. The presentation should be revised for conciseness and precision.

Line 59 Clarification: Line 59 seems out of context. Is it intended to be a subsection title? Please clarify its relevance to the surrounding text.

Literature Review Expansion: The literature review in the introduction is not comprehensive enough. To provide readers with a clear understanding of the current research landscape, it should include a broader range of relevant articles.

Figure 3 Legend: Figure 3 is missing a legend. Please include the '13%' notation within the blue area for clarity.

Introduction Conclusion: The final paragraph of the introduction should articulate the shortcomings of current research, the methods you've adopted to address these gaps, and how your work contributes to advancing the field.

Figure 5 Legend Consistency: The legend in Figure 5 should match the style and content of the main text to maintain consistency.

Sentence Conciseness: Please revise the sentence structure, particularly for figure titles like Figure 5, to avoid complex clauses. Conciseness is key in scientific communication.

Conclusion Structure: In line with standard scientific paper writing techniques, the conclusion should start with a brief paragraph summarizing the research objectives and methods. Following this, present the main conclusions in a manner that corresponds directly to the points discussed in the 'Results and Discussion' section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The manuscript's language is often ambiguous and lacks clarity. The presentation should be revised for conciseness and precision.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your work and recommendations.

We corrected the paper.

Title Revision: The title should encapsulate the key properties investigated in the study. Were these properties related to chemical composition or mechanical strength? Please ensure the title reflects this information accurately.

Agree, corrected

Language and Clarity: The manuscript's language is often ambiguous and lacks clarity. The presentation should be revised for conciseness and precision.

Agree, corrected

Line 59 Clarification: Line 59 seems out of context. Is it intended to be a subsection title? Please clarify its relevance to the surrounding text.

Agree, corrected

Literature Review Expansion: The literature review in the introduction is not comprehensive enough. To provide readers with a clear understanding of the current research landscape, it should include a broader range of relevant articles.

Agree, corrected

Figure 3 Legend: Figure 3 is missing a legend. Please include the '13%' notation within the blue area for clarity.

Agree, corrected

Introduction Conclusion: The final paragraph of the introduction should articulate the shortcomings of current research, the methods you've adopted to address these gaps, and how your work contributes to advancing the field.

Agree, corrected

Figure 5 Legend Consistency: The legend in Figure 5 should match the style and content of the main text to maintain consistency.

Agree, corrected

Sentence Conciseness: Please revise the sentence structure, particularly for figure titles like Figure 5, to avoid complex clauses. Conciseness is key in scientific communication.

Agree, corrected

Conclusion Structure: In line with standard scientific paper writing techniques, the conclusion should start with a brief paragraph summarizing the research objectives and methods. Following this, present the main conclusions in a manner that corresponds directly to the points discussed in the 'Results and Discussion' section.

Agree, corrected

Best regards, authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions for Authors are included in the appendix.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author's English is correct.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your time and revisions.

I’m sorry, at the last time I corrected this table in the end and didn’t save corrections for columns 4 – 8. Now it’s corrected.

All the best for you in your research works.

Best regards, authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made the necessary corrections in the revision and brought the article to a specific standard. However, I think that further improvement of the results and discussion section would raise the standard of the article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your time and revisions.

We added more results in Results and Discussion.

All the best for you in your research works.

Best regards, authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have addressed all the issues 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your time and revisions.

All the best for you in your research works.

Best regards, authors