Valorization of Dredged Sediments in Manufacturing Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized by Alkali-Activated Fly Ash Binder
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript studies the effect of dredged sediments in manufacturing compressed earth blocks stabilized by alkali-activated fly ash binder.
The manuscript includes an interesting work. The objective of the study is clear. The methods and the analyses are correct. This manuscript is properly, logically organized and it is innovative. I recommend accepting it after minor revision.
However, there are several points that need to be improved in order to match the quality standards of this Journal. Please consider the issues below:
- Line 280: revise the formula
- What is the novelty of this work?
- Please, add more information about the fly-ashes (composition, SEM..etc)
- In the manuscript, reference should be made to international standards in English. i.e.
- XP P13-901: Compressed earth blocks for walls and partitions : definitions - Specifications - Test methods - Delivery acceptance conditions
- Please revise the conclusion:
“These CEBs have a great insulating capacity capable to ensure the thermal comfort of buildings”
The results of the thermal conductivity indicate that there is an increase when FA is added. In my opinion, this fact is not beneficial since it decreases the insulating capacity of the block. In the manuscript, this must be said because there are statements to the
- Why the authors say that the blocks are suitable for severe conditions?
The manuscript does not refer to the characteristics that the blocks must meet under these conditions and there are no tests. Please explain this aspect.
- which is the optimum in the mixtures studied?
Author Response
Veuillez, s'il vous plait, consulter la pièce jointe
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The present paper deals with a topical issue and it is clear that the need for sediment management and use is a suitable means of moving towards sustainable construction.
In addition to the objective of the research, the introduction states that tests have shown that this particular sample does not contain hazardous waste. Given that sediment contamination is often a key issue for future use of sediments, more attention should be paid to this issue.
Comments - suggestions for additions
Figure 5 - is unfortunately too small, it would be useful to enlarge the images to make them more usable
For samples with 20 and 30% there are also some tests with non-linear results. Although these are not major differences, it would be useful to comment more on these differences.
The authors note the suitability of using this material for construction. I believe that it would be appropriate to focus on the shape of the test body. The test body is a cylinder. At least in the conclusion, the authors should also address the properties of more standard bodies used in construction and their properties - especially resistance to mechanical damage. The authors mention this only in one sentence in the conclusion.
Furthermore, the authors work with one particular type of fly ash. In further research it would be appropriate to work with fly ash from other sources, whose properties will be different.
It would be useful to complete the whole conclusion and to elaborate more on the expected steps for future research so that it could be directed, for example, towards semi-operational tests to demonstrate actual applicability.
Author Response
Veuillez, s'il vous plait, consulter la pièce jointe
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
ABSTRACT:
You cannot substitute 0% sediment
INTRODUCTION:
Page 2 line 80 – you have written ”%5”.
Last sentence in the introduction has to re-written. Who are “they”?
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Can the physical properties of sediment be stable?
Can the fly ash from other sources give similar results?
Figure 3 comes before table 3: this makes it difficult to understand the legends in the figure 3
RESULTS:
The results are presented well
Author Response
Veuillez, s'il vous plait, consulter la pièce jointe
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Very good paper.
Only minor comments.
- The discussion of Fig. 9 is unclear.
- Fig. 5 should be improved to have more details.
- The samples shown in Fig. 3 should be characterised.
- Please give more details for Table 3.
- More recent references should be added such as "Influences of silica fume on compressive strength and chemical resistances of high calcium fly ash-based alkali-activated mortar"
Author Response
Veuillez, s'il vous plait, consulter la pièce jointe
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Journal: Building MDPI Journal
Manuscript ID buildings-1639876
Manuscript Type: Research Paper
Title: Valorization of dredged sediments in manufacturing compressed earth blocks stabilized by alkali-activated fly ash
Recommendation: minor revisions
GENERAL COMMENT. The authors presented an interesting article on the use of fly ash-NaOH geopolymerization for dredged sediments. In general, the article is well structured and written, and introduces a novelty about the sediment-Fly ash geopolymerization strength. The reviewer recommends requesting minor revisions subjects to the authors reflecting on the specific comments detailed below.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS.
-Figure 1. Please, calculate the curvature and uniformity coefficients of the sediment sample
-Figure 3. Please, add the saturation line 100%.
-improve the plagiarism (It is in 20%). Please decrease by 18%.-see the attached file
-3.2 Physical properties. Add some references to compare the results
-3.5.Water capillary absorption section. Very short. Please add more discussion of the results.
-Conclusions. Please, add numerical results.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Veuillez, s'il vous plait, consulter la pièce jointe
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
