The Influence of Physical Activation of Portland Cement in the Electromagnetic Vortex Layer on the Structure Formation of Cement Stone: The Effect of Extended Storage Period and Carbon Nanotubes Modification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presented the influence of the electromagnetic vortex layer on the structure formation of cement stone during the activation of Portland cement. The work is carried out in two cases, with and without the addition of carbon nanotubes. The result is good but requires significant revision.

1. This paper has many unnecessary paragraphs. For instance, the first paragraph is just one sentence, which is not accepted. Sentences are hard to follow. The authors should rewrite it and seek professional English writers to make it readable for a wider audience.
2. In lines 35-36, what does physical activation means? The authors should illustrate this technique since it’s one of the focuses of this paper.
3. In lines 67-69, the authors mentioned a decrease in the strength of cement stone to 30%. Does the current method observe a strength reduction compared to the controlled materials?
4. The authors talked about the field of modification of cement materials by adding different nano-micro-sized particles. Is this part of the physical activation technique? Please elaborate on this.
5. Lines 188-202 should be removed as it is irrelevant to the study.
6. The paper focuses on physical activation but lacks details. The authors are encouraged to dedicate a separate sub-section in the material and method section to illustrate the procedure followed in the current paper.
7. What does increasing intensity signify in Figure 3?
8. The paper lacks evidence regarding the relationship between the bonds and the frequency value from IR. How do the authors identify these bonds? Do they probe from the experiment, or do they compare with the existing data in the literature?
9. Table 1 and Table 2 talk about anomaly areas? How is the area calculated, and what are the interpretations of these values?
10. In Tale 7, what is reciprocal wavelength? What can the readers interpret from this table?
11. In lines 462-466, the authors did not show any images to back up their claims. The authors are encouraged to justify their claims.
12. Similarly to the claims in lines 468-473.
13. The conclusion in lines 525-528 claimed the increase in silicate phase for cement stone CNT. However, in lines 482-486, the authors wrote that the introduction of CNT does not significantly increase the number of silicate phases. Furthermore, when the authors claimed that it is insignificant, it should be comparatively low by default. But 6-21% is significant, especially for 21%. Can the authors clarify?
14. The authors talked about concrete but did not provide further information on the composition. The authors did not provide any table for the mechanical strength of the concrete but just claimed that there is an increase in strength to 1.5 times.

Author Response

См вложение.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The developed solution based on the patent obtained in the Russian Federation for the invention [33] is a new interesting solution applicable in materials engineering. It is a solution dedicated to materials developed on the basis of cement and allows researchers dealing with CNT to look at another research area, bringing the possibility of further perspective development in this matter.

Cement used in this study meet the requirements according to the state Russian standard, the mechanical properties of fine concrete were also determined according to Russian standard while the authors in another part of the article refer to European standards (line 174, 277, 278). In this situation, it seems advisable to extend the tests to include materials that meet European standards. This is not a substantive comment and does not affect the assessment of the quality of the reviewed article, but it is of practical importance, as it would significantly increase the universality of the prepared publication.

Lines 188-202 should be removed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the concerns sufficiently. However, the revised manuscript still contains a paragraph with one sentence. I highly advised the authors to read the whole paper and combine the sentence suitably. Make sure to avoid a paragraph with just one sentence. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I appreciate your detailed comments, which allowed us to improve the quality of the article.
Done.