Experimental Investigation on Cement Mortar Bricks Manufactured with Fennel Wastes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Mention the specification used for the Compression test

It is required to check the spelling and grammar in the manuscript

The codes of mixes are not clear; it is required to clarify them

In general, it is required to use different colors, different styles for lines at all almost figures in the manuscript

Check Table 11 it was written samples 200 ®C, while the temperature around 600 ®C

Page 12, row number 306; check 10 MPa it appears in Table 9 MPa

Mention the specification used for the Soaking test

Page 16, row number 389, check 10 MPa

Compare the cost of using normal water and FC water

Author Response

see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In their manuscript Antonio Formisano and Antonio Davino present an experimental investigation of cement mortar bricks manufactured with fennel wastes. A series of mechanical and physical experiments were conducted to determine the performance of such material. The topic of the article is relevant from a scientific point of view. In my opinion, the idea of this work falls within the scope of the «Buildings» journal, the results are promising, and the experimental investigation seems to have been conducted properly. However, the manuscript is poorly organized. The presentation style and scientific writing need significant improvement. The manuscript can be shortened by 20-30% without any harm as now significant part of unnecessary information is included. The paper lacks consistency. My main concern is related to the chaotic order of the “Materials and Methods” and “Results”. This is the most significant (and very serious in my opinion) drawback of this manuscript.

It requires significant revision to bring it to a level worthy of publication. I must therefore recommend the major revision of this paper. Some of my recommendations for improvement are presented below:

• The abstract needs significant improvement. On the one hand, it contains an unnecessarily huge piece of theoretical information; on the other, there is a lot of missing information regarding the research results. The findings are somewhat generic. Results (in terms of numbers and their comparison) are not specified at all. Please consider reviewing the abstract.
• Lines 24-25. Why do authors specifically refer to the U.S. construction industry? I would suggest authors refer to literature sources highlighting the worldwide trend and not just specific U.S. case.
• Lines 30-31. In addition to the mentioned types of fiber-reinforced composites, it is worth mentioning the composite manufacturing methods. Please, refer to:
  • http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114520
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114428
  • https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2011.25
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2021.106609
  • https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998320922894
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111147
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112594

• Line 48. “the use of this invaluable source”, please, avoid such kind of informal writing.
• The Introduction section is unnecessarily long. It should be reorganized and then significantly shortened.
• Before the last paragraph, the Authors are encouraged to answer the following question: What research gap did you find from the previous researchers in your field? Please discuss past studies similar or closely related to this work, mention/compare their findings, and then explain how the current study brings new knowledge and difference to the field. Mention it properly. It will improve the strength of the article. Now there is no explanation at all.
• Line 93. “The percentage of fibres contained in the organic waste of fennel processing was calculated as follows”. Please, try to use concise and clear English. For example, this is an unnecessary sentence and can be removed without affecting the manuscript's content while improving its quality. Please check this issue elsewhere in the manuscript.
• Section 2. Please, specify the supplier of the materials and tools (scale, oven, etc.) and their country of origin. It will improve the quality of the article.
• Line 98. Please, specify the time specimens were kept in the oven.
• Section 3. Please, specify the supplier of the materials and tools as well as their country of origin. It will improve the quality of the article.
• Figure 2. Please, insert the reference to the supplier's website and make sure you have copyrights to use this picture.
• Table 2. It is not really clear to me what do these acronyms stand for. Please, specify.
• Table 2, 4. Please, consider using English instead of Italian for dates in the columns “Casting date” and “Dismantling date”.
• Please, consider using either “mm” or “cm” units at the tables.
• Section 4. Please, specify the testing machines.
• Table 5, 6. Please, consider also inserting standard deviation values.
• Please, consider removing well-known facts as “Shrinkage is referred-to as a progressive reduction in volume due to evaporation of excess water, which is trapped in the micropores of the cement paste” etc. These unnecessary sentences can be removed without affecting the manuscript's content while improving its quality. Please check this issue elsewhere in the manuscript.
• Please, consider using either “N/mm2” or “MPa” units at the tables.
• Line 270. Please, explain the choice of these temperatures (200C and 600C). Why didn’t you try the other ones?
• Line 332. Please, correct the Figure number. Also, check the “Date” axis. There are strange symbols. Moreover, refine the axis, as now the results are plotted on just a small graph in the top left corner.
• Line 343. Please, correct the number of the table.
• It seems really strange that in Section 5 the authors still describe the information to be explained in the Materials and Methods Section right after the Introduction Section. That is why the manuscript is quite heavy to understand. I can see a mixture of Materials and Methods, Results in all the Sections 2-5 placed in chaotic order. Please, pay attention as, at the moment, this is the most significant (and very serious in my opinion) drawback of this manuscript. It must be reorganized. Please, combine all the information related to the manufacturing and preparation part as well as the explanation of used techniques in Section “Materials and Methods”; the results of the investigation in Section “Results”. At the moment it is very hard to navigate through the manuscript.
• To improve the paper's scientific quality, I would also recommend authors bring additional figures clearly showing the different stages of the research. Please, add a flow chart of the work. For the presentation of the different steps of the work, please refer to the following articles, which can also be mentioned in the manuscript. This could help the authors to clarify the pipeline procedure, underline the importance and originality of the work.
  • https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13214800
  • https://doi.org/10.1177/00219983211001528

• Please, correct the legend in Figure 14. There is an overlap.
• “The comparison shows that the material with water and fennel fibres in the mixture provides a response similar to that of the reference material at medium-low frequencies, of greater interest in the civil sector, but a better response at high frequencies”. Please, consider, that this claim must be supported by references from the literature or compared against them.
• The results are merely described and are limited to comparing the experimental observation. The Authors are encouraged to include a Discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
• The authors are encouraged to bring additional paragraph discussing possibilities for future studies, showing future research directions to the scholars. It will also be good to provide a deeper analysis regarding the possible applications of results revealed in this study.

Author Response

see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised and improved the manuscript according to my advice. The manuscript has been significantly restructured and improved. Materials and methods are now in separate paragraphs, while the Results are in the other. The article can be published in “Buildings” without any structural correction.