Development of Alfa Fiber-Based Mortar with Improved Thermo-Mechanical Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, the authors presented a method of developing a cheap composite based on a mortar reinforced with optimally dimensioned Alfa fibers. The research concept is very correct, the proposed research methods and their presentation are carried out in an appropriate manner and the analysis of the results is presented correctly. Sometimes the authors lacked insight in the interpretation of the obtained results. In addition, there are unfortunate slip-ups in the text that need to be corrected, such as:

Line 33:  better to use “very” instead of “too”

Line 218: it should be “hydrophilic” instead of “hydric”

Line 221: probably "trapping" instead of "training"

My greatest doubts and remarks are raised by the following paragraphs:

part 3.1. SEM morphological analysis of the AFRM composites:

I suggest that the authors place the SEM photos at lower magnification so that the fiber distribution in the composite is more visible. The enlargements shown in the manuscript are very close and do not fully reflect the distribution of AF.

In addition, it seems to me that in composites with the highest content of Alpha fibers, the presence of voids is not mainly due to the drying operation, but above all to worse miscibility and lower fiber dispersion in the mortar.

Part 3.2. line 223:

It should be explained why, despite the increase in AF, both the saturation and the content of open pores slightly decrease, and the density. These are values within the error limits. How many series have been tested and are the results reproducible?

Part 3.3.1.a.

from line  245: The authors should elaborate on the topic of porosity in the context of body conduction. Because earlier they relate a lot to open porosity, and it is not it that is responsible for the limited thermal conductivity, on the contrary. Therefore, the authors should clearly distinguish between open and closed porosity in the description and precisely indicate that it is the closed porosity that reduces thermal conductivity.

Fig.8: Additionally, I don't like describing one of the quantities in the chart as an improvement ... of course you can read it in the description, but it should be clearly indicated in the chart.

After addressing my comments and taking the necessary corrections into account, I will recommend the manuscript for publication in Applied Science.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript with a title of “Development of a low-cost Alfa fibers based mortar with improved thermo-mechanical properties” is presenting experimental observations and theoretical analyses on the preparation, structure, and properties of Alfa fibers-based cement composites. The subject of the manuscript is interesting, useful, and is a good fit to the scope of Applied Sciences journal while its novelty is not attractive.

1. Though English writing is mostly clear and correct but there are some errors and vague sentences that need editing. The manuscript must follow the style of the journal, such as capitalization. Other writing errors should be found and fully edited.
2. The Title should be in capital letters. Also, change “Alfa fibers based” to ‘Alfa fibers-based’.
3. The Keywords are appropriate and clear. I think “thermal conductivity prediction” as a keyword is a kind of “thermal properties”, so it is redundant, and I suggest removing and replacing it with ‘cement’ or ‘concrete’.
4. The Abstract is sufficient while needs editing. It should be clear and concise. For instance, I see errors in tenses: “were performed” vs. “preparation process is described”. I suggest all tenses be in present tense, so change “were performed” to ‘are performed’.
5. The Introduction section presents sufficient information and literature review. There are weak sentences. For example, in line 82, “In the first part of this paper, the material preparation process is described where the scanning electron microscopy was performed to determine the morphology of these new composites.” SEM examination is characterization, not part of “material preparation process”.
6. Section “2. Composite preparation, experimental and theoretical methods description” is clear and sufficient. I suggest changing title to ‘Materials and Methods’.
   One space is needed between values and unites, for example in “(35g/l)” and “30°C” in line 101 should be ‘(35 g/L)’ and ’30 °C’.
   In line 102, what do you mean by “washed with high pressure water”? Is this just using a water jet or using an high-pressure chamber, washing at P above atmospheric pressure?
   In Fig. 1 caption, by “after dryness process” do you mean drying process?
   I still see errors of tenses, like in line 121, “The cement used in this study is Portland”. Please check and find all potential grammatical errors and correct them.
   In line 123, “with a maximum size of 2 mm and water absorption of 2.15”, what is the unit of water absorption?
7. The Results and Discussion section is presenting sufficient observations but writing needs comprehensive editing and presentations in graphs and tables require editing.
   In Fig. 5 caption, “at two different magnitudes 1mm and 500μm”, these are scale lengths not magnitudes if you mean magnification. Scales at the bottom of micrographs are different from those inserted at the top.
   Subtitles are inaccurate and vague. For instance, “3.2. Physical performance analysis” and “3.3. Thermal performance analysis”, while thermal is a kind of and included in the physical.
   Four levels of titles might be unnecessary (e.g., 3.3.1.a), please reorganize the entire manuscript.
   There are different θs in Fig. 2 and Figs. 6, 7, etc. with different meanings of angel and fiber contents, as I understand. There is also θ′. Anything that may result in ambiguity for the reader needs to be fixed. Terminology must be consistent.
   In line 259, “( [40], [44],[45] and [46] )” should be written as [40,44–46]. Please follow standards of academic writing.
   In line 269, I read “?.?⁻¹.?⁻¹” but in Table 3, “(kg/m³)”, two different forms of writing units. There are many cases of inconsistency of style in the entire manuscript, all should be fixed.
   It was stated that the product is “low-cost” but there is no cost analysis to indicate this claim. Either remove this baseless claim or include an evidence, like a cost analysis in comparison with similar building materials products available in the market or have been investigated and presented in the literature.
   The properties were examined on fresh products. How the highly aggressive basic environment of cement may affect long-term performance of the prepared composites?    
8. The Conclusions section is sufficient and clear.
9. The References format must follow the journal’s style.

With careful review, I see the subject of this manuscript with present contents in good fit with the Applied Sciences journal. It was expected the respected authors present the final fully edited manuscript for peer review. In the present form it includes errors, needs a major revision.    

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend the manuscript entitled "Development of Alfa Fibers-Based Mortar with Improved Thermo-Mechanical Properties" for publication in Applied Science.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of manuscript with a title of “Development of Alfa Fibers-Based Mortar with Improved Thermo-Mechanical Properties” is much better than the initial copy. The English writing errors have mainly been corrected, but I can see few minor writing errors that during proofreading stage could be fixed.

One space is needed before and after math symbols and operators (e.g., in line 136, RH=65±5% should be RH = 65% ± 5%; whereas, in line 172 it was written correctly as 500 ± 10 N/s). Moreover, style of writing units must be consistent; for example, in line 221, I read (247 kg.m^-3) while in line 172, 500 ± 10 N/s. Use N-dash for negative sign (like, –5 and kg·m^–3) instead of hyphen (like -5 and kg.m^-3).

In line 509, the format of paper title as “Young’s modulus and thermophysical performances of bio-sourced materials based on date palm fibers” is different from that in line 513 of “Analysis of the Mechanical Properties of Mortar Reinforced with Long Unidirectional Alfa Fibers in Different Curing Conditions”. Format must be consistent

The manuscript can be considered for publication in the Applied Sciences journal after minor writing inconsistency cases.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx