Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The current literature review merely lists examples without providing a critical analysis; research gaps and comparisons are not sufficiently discussed, and therefore the novelty and contribution of the present study are not clearly articulated in the introduction.
2. Although studies on this topic exist in the literature, the manuscript does not clearly define its methodological originality beyond these existing works, making the innovative aspect of the study unclear.
3. The chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the fly ash (XRF, XRD, specific surface area), the mixing and foam-generation procedures (mixer type, duration, speed, pressure, foam density), the curing standards, and the specimen dimensions, testing device details, and number of repetitions for mechanical tests are not sufficiently reported.
4. Despite the large number of tables and figures, the discussion section remains weak, and key mechanistic relationships—such as the link between thermal conductivity, water absorption, and mechanical strength—are not deeply analyzed.
5. The SEM images are only descriptively presented, and the chemical cause-effect relationships are not well developed; similarly, the connection between FTIR peak shifts and hydration products is explained only superficially, limiting the depth of microstructural analysis.
6. The limitations of the study are not discussed.
7. Figures need to be re-examined due to issues such as low resolution, missing text, and insufficient explanations.
8. The effects of fly ash content and porosity are not adequately discussed.
9. The results should be more thoroughly interpreted by linking them to microstructural analyses and comparable findings in the literature.
10. A MIP analysis should be conducted to determine the pore-size distribution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written, but there are a few corrections to be made. Please find below some of the recommendations which may help improve the quality of the paper:

1- The abstract needs to be enhanced. Some helpful quantitative results and valuable recommendations arising from the performed studies can be acquired based on the offered studies and discussion. The abstract should provide the relevant conclusions.

2- Introduction: The authors should draw attention to the study's uniqueness and the existing knowledge gap.

3- Please go into further detail about this work's primary contribution in comparison to other research studies that are currently available, as well as the particular research need you hope to fill.

4- Since the authors of the literature review neglected to address the limitations of the publications they cited, I think they ought to offer a more critical analysis.

5- Include sections that address the study's shortcomings, consequences, and recommendations for additional research.

6- Please mention the source of raw materials

7- A more thorough explanation of the manuscript introductory section's originality is needed. There hasn't been much creativity in the manuscript. Please provide more details on its novelty. 8- The conclusions ought to be updated and condensed, emphasizing the most significant discoveries of this study.

 9- To raise the English standard, a native English speaker should also thoroughly study the  document.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

To raise the English standard, a native English speaker should also thoroughly study the document.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 
 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents the development and optimization of an alkaliactivated foam concrete (AAFC) suitable for ultralow-energy buildings in hot-summer and cold-winter regions. the topic is timely, and the study offers a comprehensive experimental program involving and 8.factor, 4-level orthogonal design. the work attempts to respond to practical requirements of water resistance, thermal insulation, and durability- parameters often underexplored in current AAFC literature. Overall, the manuscript is valuable, although several areas would benefit from clarification and refinement.

Although the introduction covers a broad range of references, the narrative is somewhat fragmanted. The motivation for empjasizing water resistance and frost durability is mentioned but not fully developed in relation to gaps in existing studies. the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of why current AAFC systems fall short specifically in hot-summer and cold-winter regions. Some references appear to be included for general completeness rather than to build a coherent argument. A more concise, focused literature synthesis would strengthen the justification for the research design.

The chosen experimental approach - particularly the use of an 8-factor orthogonal design - is appropriate for a study aiming to evaluate multiple interactiong variables. The use of a target performance framework for ultralow-energy buildings is also sensible and aligns with practical engineering constraints. The sequential process (preliminary mix, orthogonal optimization, matrix analysis) is logically structured and well matched to the stated objectives.

Most procedures are describe, but several details require additional clarity. The exact preparation steps of the foaming process, activator composition, and curing regime are not consistently provieded. The paper would benefit from a more explicit fdescription of the criteria used in the matrix analysis that led to identifying the oprimal mix. For reproducibility, the authors should also include the detailed level setting for each factor in the orthogonal matrix.

The results follow the methodology in a clear sequence, and the performance indicators are reported in a structured way. The discussion of thermal conductivity and mechanical properties is adequate. However, certain comparisons - particularly whn interpreting the effect of SiO2 aerogel and waterproofing agent - could be more directily supported with quantitative arguments. A more explicit statistical interpretation of factor significance would bfurther strengthen the presentation.

The identified optimal mix proportion is consistent with the data presented. The reported dry density, thermal conductivity, water absorption, strengths, shrinkage, and frost resistance values fall within the target boundaries. The empasis that the SiO2 aerogel improves insulation without compromising strength is aligned with the experimental findings. OVerall, the conclusions accurately reflect the results, although th manuscript would benefit from brief remarks on broader applicability and limitations.

The general quality of figures and tables is adaqate, but some axes labels and legend could be more readable. Tables covering orthogonal factors and results would benefit from a slightly more compact organization and clearer column headings. No major issues, but refinement would enhance readability.

The integration of aerogel and systematic resistance optimization is notable. Practical implications for ultralow-energy buildings are substantial. Readable but needs language redinement and improved structural coherence. Experimentation is methodical; conclusions follow the data. Relevant to energy-efficient materials, sustainable construction, and geopolymer concrete research.

The manuscript references an extensive set of recent publications, including studies on foamed geopolymer systems, aerogel-modified material, lightweight concrete, and durability. Some redundancy exists, but overall the reference list is current and relevant.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from careful language editing to correct grammatical errors and improve clarity. Several sentences are overly long or loosely connected, especially in the introduction. Improving the flow will help the reader understand both the motivation and the logical sequence of the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 
 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear authors,   I am glad that I was given the opportunity to review and assess your manuscript, which deals with the Study on the preparation and optimization of the performance of foam concrete modified with aerogel based on fly ash activated with alkaline components.   In this regard, I must state that this is indeed a topic of the utmost topicality and benefit; moreover, it is globally applicable and important for both the lay and professional public, since housing concerns each of us. The content of your manuscript fully corresponds to both the thematic focus of the scientific journal and the special issue. After checking the originality of the manuscript, I conclude that the 12% match is acceptable.   However, I recommend making several adjustments, which are not particularly demanding, but are necessary for the manuscript to be published and to meet the high quality requirements of the scientific journal.   The abstract, according to the instructions for authors, should interest the reader. This is why it should contain a clear objective, the scientific research methods used, results and conclusions (recommendations). In addition, it would be appropriate for the abstract to also mention the sources/data used, from which you drew knowledge and performed calculations.   The introduction correctly and briefly places the study in the issue and also emphasizes its importance. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific tested hypotheses that are missing. The current state of the research area should be carefully examined and key publications should be cited, which is missing in this manuscript. In this context, I recommend that you also focus your attention on the issue of environmental sustainability, the construction and use of green and blue buildings in the context of the construction of smart cities. Several freely available works from the WoS and Scopus databases, such as:   Peráček Tomáš and Michal Kaššaj. 2025. Legal Easements as Enablers of Sustainable Land Use and Infrastructure Development in Smart Cities. Land, 14 (4), 681, https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040681   Pessina, Stéphane, 'The Link Between Environmental Rights and the Rights of Nature: The Virtues of a Complexity-Based Approach', Juridical Tribune - Review of Comparative and International Law 15, no. 2 (June 2025): 406-422, 10.62768/TBJ/2025/15/2/09   The methodological chapter is sufficient, but without any regard to the description of the basic scientific research methods such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction, including their brief description and justification of their use for each chapter of the manuscript as it is elaborated in the work of Peráček & Kaššaj (2025) including graphical representation.   This deficiency would be appropriate to eliminate. The last final chapter does not contain confirmation/rejection of the established hypotheses.   I also recommend supplementing it with the limits of the research as well as the possibilities and directions of your potential future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 
    Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 
 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have read your revised manuscript very carefully. However, I expected more thorough revisions and adjustments. It is also necessary to explain the adjustments more thoroughly in the cover letter or justify why you did not make some of the proposed changes. Silence/omission is not ethically appropriate.

I have no reservations about the abstract. I recommend sorting the keywords alphabetically.
You have only marginally addressed the editing of the introduction. There are no established research questions/hypotheses that you would answer in the conclusion/discussion.

You have not strengthened the theoretical foundation. It would really be appropriate to devote a separate subchapter to this issue, also using the current works that I suggested. The purpose of the theoretical foundation is to provide such a scientific work with a basis from which the researched issue develops.

In the methodology j you accepted my recommendations based on the work that I proposed to include in the theoretical basis, however this work is not mentioned in the references or in the text, which may be an ethical problem.

Future research as well as research limits are added, but only in a hint, which seems to me to be insufficient.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 
 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have read your revised and supplemented manuscript very carefully. In its current state, it is a scholarly work suitable for publication.

Best regards, Reviewer