Modified Lime Binders for Restoration Work

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title

The title refers properly to the content of the article and analyzed problems.

Abstract

The last sentence is a conclusion about the weather resistance on the base of reducing the porosity and the volume of closed pores. However such results on porosity and closed pores are not presented in the paper.

Section 2.1

Trade names of superplasticizers rather should not be given. Symbols or  abbreviations of first letters is better to use. Full names can be hidden in brackets. More interesting information could be about chemical type of superplasticizer. There is no information about this. There are 6 superplasticizers and it is not known what differences of them are, except their trade names.    

Section 2.2

There is no information about mineral additives, their properties, especially about wollastonite and diatomite, which are not so popular in literature as silica fume. Thank to this the reader could know why such materials have been used.

Section 2.3

Information about method of bulk density determination is not clear (“...by filling a vessel with a capacity of 1000 cm³ .”). How the volume was determined ?  What shape of samples were used, regular or irregular ?

No information about sampling, only about mixes.

    However, below the chemical formula it is written about sampling for compression testing, with very small sizes, only 10 x10 x 10 mm. Probably the reason of this is ability application of mixes in plastering or rendering. However no plaster samples were made so that to take of small 10 mm samples for compression strength. Maybe  these samples could be made larger, e.g. in form of 40 x 40 x 160 mm prisms typical for compression testing of mortars. Because of so small sizes the gained strength results probably are greater to those of larger sizes because of scale effect.

The comment could be added that main aim of small sizes was to compare results of influence of additives.

    In the end of Section 2.3 there is a formula for the softening coefficient. However results on this coefficient are not presented in the section 3. If the weather resistance of the mortars is taken into consideration, such results would be valuable in the study.     

Section 3.1

In the table 2, the unit of liquid glass silicate modulus is omitted.

To check the value 2935 kg/m³ of bulk density which is greater to the value of real density. Maybe 1935  kg/m³ should be.

The conclusion about polyfractional (bi-modal) nature of the size distribution of the silicate-containing filler is not clear seen looking to the Table 3. Better is to except the Table to present this property on the Figure with three curves.      

In the Table 3 in the titles of the second and third columns a word “slow” could be added (with the slow introduction).

Any comment could be added about difference between slow and quick introduction of a solution of the participant.  

Section 3.2

In Fig.7 the numbers of curves are not described.

In the Table 5 values of standard deviations for strengths results are not given.

There is no information about the correlation value of modeled formula 1 and 2 of strength kinetics. If there are models, result dots should be added, similarly as in Fig.7, so that to know for on which days strengthes were determined.  

In the title of the Fig.5 there is no information about number of tested sample, according to the Table 1.

In the title of the Fig.6 there is no information about amount of CaCl₂ additive as in the Fig.3.

Section 4

The title ‘Conclusions” in plural should be.

There are some conclusions about results which are not presented in the paper.

    In conclusion 1 it is written that “The regularities of the filler synthesis were established depending on the temperature, …” but such agent were not considered in the presented study.

In the end it is written that “The optimal density of liquid glass was determined, which is ?? kg/m, …” No value of the density is written in it. Futhermore, only two values of liquid glass density were discussed (Table.2). It is rather comparison, no optimal determination. If such optimal analysis was carried out in the research it could be included to the presented study.   

   In conclusion 2 it is written about the curves of the particle size distribution but no such curves are presented in the text, only the comment about polyfractional nature mentioned distribution.  

The conclusion about average particle diameter 28-34 microns seems to be without any comments in Section 3. 

   In the end of conclusion 4 it is written about influence of CSH additive on porosity and closed pores but such results are not presented in the paper. These results should be included.

  In the conclusion 5 the information about results of a usage superplasticizers S-3 and SP-3 is not scientific. Better to present these plasticizers according to their chemical type.

Many conclusions in Section 4 are written in form of a report, that something was done, something was revealed by XRD, IR, microscopies (Conclusion 2), that mathematical model has been obtained. Such information belong to Section 3.

Conclusions should present the results and their relationships according to the undertaken aim of the study and the title.

In the abstract it was written that “the study aimed to improve lime plaster mixes” weather resistance”. However there is no conclusion about this. The first conclusion should refer to weather resistance and next conclusion could confirm this. 

This Section requires improving.

Other suggestions:

It is recommend to revise the paper according to English specialist because there are doubtful phrases in some places, e.g: 

In section 2.2.:  “The mix design was carried out based on …”,  “ … mineral additives was with silica fume …”

The translation “true density” in the literature is used as “real density” or “specific density”.

Plasters are internal finishes. If they are used outside are called “renders”, especially in case of weather resistance considerations. If a mortar mix can be used both inside and outside, both terms can be used. Example for this is a title of the references [3].

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1!

Thank you for your interest in my manuscript. Your valuable comments helped make our manuscript even better. All corrections in the manuscript are highlighted in green. Below are the answers to all comments from your first review.

Comment 1: The title. The title refers properly to the content of the article and analyzed problems.

Response: Thanks for approving the title.

.Comment 2: Abstract. The last sentence is a conclusion about the weather resistance on the base of reducing the porosity and the volume of closed pores. However such results on porosity and closed pores are not presented in the paper..

Response: These results have been added in Table 9

Comment 3: Section 2.1. Trade names of superplasticizers rather should not be given. Symbols or  abbreviations of first letters is better to use. Full names can be hidden in brackets. More interesting information could be about chemical type of superplasticizer. There is no information about this. There are 6 superplasticizers and it is not known what differences of them are, except their trade names.

Response:  Trademarks have been turned into acronyms. Instead, the chemical compositions were given (page 2)

Comment 4:  Section 2.2. There is no information about mineral additives, their properties, especially about wollastonite and diatomite, which are not so popular in literature as silica fume. Thank to this the reader could know why such materials have been used.

Response: Table 1 has been added that lists the chemical composition of these additives.

Comment 5:  Section 2.3 Information about method of bulk density determination is not clear (“...by filling a vessel with a capacity of 1000 cm³ .”). How the volume was determined ?  What shape of samples were used, regular or irregular ?

Response: The container volume has been preset. And the shape of the tested materials was regular, which accordingly shows more adequate values of the bulk density

Comment 6:  No information about sampling, only about mixes..

Response: The investigation of finishing layers for strength in compression and bending was investigated using a setup developed by the authors on specimens 10 × 10 × 10 mm and 10 × 10 × 50 mm in size, respectively (page 4)

Comment 7:  However, below the chemical formula it is written about sampling for compression testing, with very small sizes, only 10 x10 x 10 mm. Probably the reason of this is ability application of mixes in plastering or rendering. However no plaster samples were made so that to take of small 10 mm samples for compression strength. Maybe these samples could be made larger, e.g. in form of 40 x 40 x 160 mm prisms typical for compression testing of mortars. Because of so small sizes the gained strength results probably are greater to those of larger sizes because of scale effect.

Response: You are right, the reason for choosing the sizes of the tested samples lies in the thickness of the plaster. The 40 x 40 x 160mm prism samples you quoted are typical for testing mortars, not plasters.

Comment 8:  The comment could be added that main aim of small sizes was to compare results of influence of additives.

Response: Yes, we totally agree with that.

Comment 9:  In the end of Section 2.3 there is a formula for the softening coefficient. However results on this coefficient are not presented in the section 3. If the weather resistance of the mortars is taken into consideration, such results would be valuable in the study.

Response: These results have been added to Fig. 11

Comment 10:  Section 3.1 In the table 2, the unit of liquid glass silicate modulus is omitted..

Response: A silicate modulus of water glass was calculated as the ratio of the number of grams of silicon dioxide molecules to the number of grams of sodium oxide molecules.(page 2). It is a dimensionless quantity

Comment 11:  To check the value 2935 kg/m3 of bulk density which is greater to the value of real density. Maybe 1935  kg/m3 should be.

Response: Yes, this typo has been corrected

Comment 12:  The conclusion about polyfractional (bi-modal) nature of the size distribution of the silicate-containing filler is not clear seen looking to the Table 3. Better is to except the Table to present this property on the Figure with three curves.

Response: This table has been remake to Fig. 2

Comment 13:  In the Table 3 in the titles of the second and third columns a word “slow” could be added (with the slow introduction).

Response: This word has been added (Fig. 2)

Comment 14:  Any comment could be added about difference between slow and quick introduction of a solution of the participant. 

Response: The slow introduction of the precipitant solution was carried out within 10 minutes, and the fast one was within 1 minute. (page 5)

Comment 15:  Section 3.2 In Fig.7 the numbers of curves are not described.

Response: This information has been added to the figure caption (now called Fig. 8)

Comment 16:  In the Table 5 values of standard deviations for strengths results are not given

Response: In the Table 5 values of standard deviations for strengths results have been added

Comment 17:  There is no information about the correlation value of modeled formula 1 and 2 of strength kinetics. If there are models, result dots should be added, similarly as in Fig.7, so that to know for on which days strengthes were determined. 

Response: Information on the magnitude of the correlation of the simulated formulas 1 and 2 of the strength kinetics is presented in Fig. 10 where result points have been added to know which days the gain values were determined for.

Comment 18:  In the title of the Fig.5 there is no information about number of tested sample, according to the Table 1.

Response: For all tests, 3 samples of each composition were applied

Comment 19:  In the title of the Fig.6 there is no information about amount of CaCl2 additive as in the Fig.3.

Response: 30% of the mass of the water glass with a silicate modulus of 2.9 (now it's Fig. 7)

Comment 20:  Section 4 The title ‘Conclusions” in plural should be.

Response: It has been corrected

Comment 21:  There are some conclusions about results which are not presented in the paper.

Response: Conclusions section has been completely rewritten

Comment 22:    In conclusion 1 it is written that “The regularities of the filler synthesis were established depending on the temperature, …” but such agent were not considered in the presented study.

Response: The word “temperature“has been deleted

Comment 23:   In the end it is written that “The optimal density of liquid glass was determined, which is ?? kg/m, …” No value of the density is written in it. Futhermore, only two values of liquid glass density were discussed (Table.2). It is rather comparison, no optimal determination. If such optimal analysis was carried out in the research it could be included to the presented study.  

Response: Corrected: “The rational density of liquid glass was determined, which is 1130-1663 kg/m³“

Comment 24:   In conclusion 2 it is written about the curves of the particle size distribution but no such curves are presented in the text, only the comment about polyfractional nature mentioned distribution.

Response: These curves have been added to Fig.2

Comment 25:   The conclusion about average particle diameter 28-34 microns seems to be without any comments in Section 3.

Response: This information has been added below Fig. 3

Comment 26:     In the end of conclusion 4 it is written about influence of CSH additive on porosity and closed pores but such results are not presented in the paper. These results should be included.

Response: These results have been added in Table 9

Comment 27:     In the conclusion 5 the information about results of a usage superplasticizers S-3 and SP-3 is not scientific. Better to present these plasticizers according to their chemical type.

Response: Chemical types of all the superplasticizers have been added it section 2.1

Comment 28:    Many conclusions in Section 4 are written in form of a report, that something was done, something was revealed by XRD, IR, microscopies (Conclusion 2), that mathematical model has been obtained. Such information belong to Section 3.

Response: Conclusions section has been completely rewritten

Comment 29:    Conclusions should present the results and their relationships according to the undertaken aim of the study and the title.

Response: The conclusions were presented in accordance with the aim of the study and the title.

Comment 30:   In the abstract it was written that “the study aimed to improve lime plaster mixes” weather resistance”. However there is no conclusion about this. The first conclusion should refer to weather resistance and next conclusion could confirm this.

Comment 31:  This Section requires improving.

Response: Conclusions section has been completely rewritten

Comment 32:  It is recommend to revise the paper according to English specialist because there are doubtful phrases in some places, e.g:  In section 2.2.:  “The mix design was carried out based on …”,  “ … mineral additives was with silica fume …”

Response: The manuscript has been carefully checked by a native English speaker

Comment 33:  The translation “true density” in the literature is used as “real density” or “specific density”.

Response: The entire manuscript was corrected for "real density"

Comment 34:  Plasters are internal finishes. If they are used outside are called “renders”, especially in case of weather resistance considerations. If a mortar mix can be used both inside and outside, both terms can be used. Example for this is a title of the references [3].

Response: The word "render" has been added in all the right places in the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see highlighted texts within the attached pdf, with the detailed comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2!

Thank you for your interest in my manuscript. Your valuable comments helped make our manuscript even better. All corrections in the manuscript are highlighted in green. Below are the answers to all comments from your first review.

Comment 1:  Please rephrase: at least delete the repeated word "buildings".

Response: The words "historical buildings" have been deleted

Comment 2:  resistivity to the leaching action of water.

Response: The words " resistivity to the leaching action of water" have been deleted

Comment 3: Is this a measured value? Or a general specification? Because the fact that the specific surface area is EXACTLY 10000 is rather surprising. Please explain.

Response: This value was taken from the general manufacturer's specification.

Comment 4: It would be interesting, if data are available, if you had a chemical analysis of the "drinking" water you refer to,

There exist cities where the drinking water (actually the correct term is tap water) is not really that drinkable, as it contains many heavy metals or its hardness is increased.

Response:  In this case, the chemical composition and water pH corresponds to the Russian standard for carrying out these tests.

Comment 5: What do you mean with the term "technological"?

Response:  Changed to “Mechanical“

Comment 6: 1. Please provide more info. At least provide the manufacturer of these superplasticizers

2. What was the rational of selecting these exact superplasticizers?

Response:  The point is that another reviewer made a comment that there is no need to write trademarks and manufacturers of superplasticizers. Instead, the chemical basis for each should be given. This was done during the revision. The choice of the amount of added superplasticizers in the developed mixtures was made based on the recommendations of the manufacturers and our preliminary research.

Comment 7: Did you use each of the superplasticizer for each composition mentioned in Table1?

What are the exact amounts of each additive per composition?

Response:  Each superplasticizer was used for the best formulation (03-A) and control formulation. The exact amount of each additive in the composition is shown in Table 7?

Comment 8: Please either add lines, between each Composition category, or repeat all the information for all MixID. The spaces in between are confusing, see also comment in Table 2, where a similar problem exists

Response:  Lines have been added in all tables where needed

Comment 9: Add manufacturer, i.e. Fritsch

Response:  It has been added

Comment 10: Add manufacturer

Response:  It has been added

Comment 11: use different word, avoid repetition

Response:  Changed to “researched“

Comment 12: What is special about this setup? Is it the metal elements at the base of the 3-point bending?

Do you have any references for further reading?

Response:  Yes, the features of this setup include the metal elements at the base of the 3-point bend. There are no links for further reading, because the setup has been developed by us recently

Comment 13: Repeat header to the broken table in next page, or move the complete table to the next page

Response:  This table will be formatted during layout

Comment 14: Replace with 0.268

Response:  Replaced

Comment 15: Please indicate that this refers to the first set of specimens (liquid glass modulus 2.9)

Response:  Indicated

Comment 16: This is only the value for the quick introduction. Please either rephrase to "in the range 34-39%" or remove completely as it is confusing

Response:  Rephrased

Comment 17: What are the corresponding values for the other two cases?

Response:  Summarized data on particle size distribution have been added to Fig. 2

Comment 18: Please retype so that Chemical formulae are not broken into next line

You may decrease the width of the other three columns

Response:  Retyped

Comment 19: What do numbers 1, 2, 3 on the right side of the three curves indicate? I assume that they refer to different lime: CSH composition, but it is not that clear

Response:  This information has been added to the caption in Fig. 8

Comment 20: Also, please use different shapes for each set. Not all of them just black dots. It is confusing

Response:  In fact, for these points, the spread of the results obtained is easily graphically represented.

Comment 21: There is something wrong about the format. Why is it that far right?

Response:  In the current version, formatting was carried out according to the journal template

Comment 22: Are these average values for each Mix? Or you only did one mechanical test for each mix? If you have made more than one measurement per mix, please add the variance of values. +/-

Response:  It has been corrected

Comment 23: You only show the fitting curve. Please also add the points (black circles) for each case, for the measured days.

Response:  It has been added

Comment 24: Obviously there is a pronounced increase in the kinetics. However, as in the previous comment, please indicate how well the fitting curve (i.e. this equation) fits the actual data. Provide e.g. the R2 of each curve. And certainly add the points over which the curves are fitted.

Response:  It has been corrected

Comment 25: You meant S-3?

Response:  Yes.Corrected

Comment 26: I thought that the finishing lime composition refered to 03-A, and not Ref-A.

In which case the water-reducing effect is 1.8 not 1.6.

Response:  Yes.Corrected

Comment 27: What do you mean with "water-reducing efffect"?

Response:  The water-reducing effect is a reduction in water consumption while maintaining equal mobility (page 12)

Comment 28: Is it the same for all superplasticizers? For example if Kratasol 0.7 shows a water-reducing effect of 1.7 for 2 hours compared to SP-3 of 1.8 for 1 hour, the Kratasol may be more desirable, since the  increase for SP-3 is not that significant

Response:  Yes that's right! Therefore, different dosages of superplasticizers are used.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All improvements are accepted.

One comment only:  In the end of the title of the Fig.8 No. 3 is omitted for the 03-B sample.