Characteristics of Steel Slag and Properties of High-Temperature Reconstructed Steel Slag

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the high-temperature reconstruction of converter steel slag using limestone, silica, and silicomanganese slag, with the aim of improving cementitious activity. The study combines experimental characterization, thermodynamic calculations, and performance testing. The topic is relevant to sustainable metallurgy and cementitious materials, and the work provides useful insights into slag modification and utilization.

The introduction clearly describes the background of steel slag generation, existing utilization challenges, and prior research on modification and reconstruction methods. Relevant and up-to-date references are cited, providing sufficient context and justification for the study.

The research design is appropriate and well-structured. The combination of raw material characterization, high-temperature reconstruction experiments, phase equilibrium calculations, and cement performance tests is suitable for addressing the stated research objectives.

The experimental methods, including XRD, XRF, SEM–EDS, particle size analysis, thermodynamic modeling, and mechanical testing, are described in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility. Equipment models, testing standards, and key parameters are clearly specified.

The results are logically organized and presented with appropriate figures and tables. Phase evolution, microstructural features, and performance improvements are clearly explained and supported by experimental data.

The conclusions are consistent with and well supported by the experimental findings and thermodynamic calculations. The improvements in setting time and compressive strength are directly linked to changes in mineral composition and phase evolution.

Most figures and tables are clear and informative. However, minor improvements could be made to figure resolution, caption clarity, and consistent formatting of phase names and symbols to enhance readability.

The manuscript is generally understandable, but grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistent terminology are present in several sections. Moderate language polishing would improve clarity and readability.

The reconstruction approach is an extension of existing methods, but its integration with thermodynamic analysis and performance validation adds value. The study addresses an important industrial and environmental problem related to steel slag utilization. The structure is logical, but language and formatting refinements are needed. Experimental design, data analysis, and thermodynamic reasoning are technically sound. The topic is relevant to researchers and engineers in metallurgy, cement, and sustainable materials.

The references are relevant, up to date, and adequately support the background, methodology, and discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from careful English language editing to improve sentence structure, grammar, and consistency of technical terminology. These issues do not affect the scientific content but should be addressed to improve clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following comments:

1. Introduction section: There are too few literature items, so they should be supplemented.

2. Materials and Methods section needs to be rewritten. The characteristics of the samples, including information about their number, should be presented in a separate subsection. In addition to the diffractogram, the phase composition of steel slag should also be presented in a table. Please add a description of both the chemical and phase composition of steel slag. Descriptions of research methods should be in a separate subsection and supplemented with measurement uncertainties.

3. No discussion of results. In this form, the article is a report. The discussion of the results should be added as a separate section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors’ efforts, but I have the following comments and suggestions for improvement:

1. The number of keywords should be increased, within the limits specified by the journal guidelines, to better reflect the scope and subject of the study.

2. The abbreviation (RO) used on page 2, line 50, is not defined. All abbreviations should be clearly defined at their first occurrence in the text.

3. Units should be unified throughout the manuscript. For example, temperature is reported inconsistently in Kelvin (K) and Celsius (°C); a single unit system should be adopted consistently.

4. Experimental work (magnetic separation): The role and relevance of magnetic separation to the study should be clearly explained. Please specify what was obtained after separation (e.g., magnetic and non-magnetic fractions) and provide the name of the device used.

5. All instruments and devices used in the experimental work should be clearly identified, including the manufacturer and country of origin.

6. The names of the software used for data analysis should be included in the figure captions, particularly for Figures 2, 11, and 12.

7. Appropriate references to Figure 8 should be included in the text.

8. The EDX elemental mapping in Figure 13 should be presented at higher magnification to improve clarity.

9. Equation numbering should be corrected and properly referenced in the text. For example, on page 11, equation numbering should continue sequentially and start from Equation (9) rather than restarting from Equation (1).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments have been taken into account by the authors.