Review Reports
- Gerrit J. Jordaan1,2,* and
- Wynand J. v. d. M. Steyn3
Reviewer 1: Piotr Mackiewicz Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting review article.
In the summary, describe a little more about the measurable advantages of the new solution - boast. There is too much of a general description. Maybe give some practical recommendations.
As for a review article, without specific research by the authors given, a better review of the state of the art should be done. Show who used nanotechnologies for what and what were the benefits.
Not enough specific descriptions of research results for Modified Emulsions (NME).
Author Response
As per attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The idea is quite interesting and novel to explore the effects of fundamental factors that are a pre-requisite for the evaluation of nanotechnology solutions to ensure that new technologies are introduced into pavement engineering designs on environmental sustainability. There are sufficient references provided by the authors. Work appears convincing and the rationale is logical.
The arguments concerning toxicology add some to the work, but the potential liability remains. One will not know the significance of this risk until detailed in vivo toxicology studies are carried out. From this reviewer’s point of view this is a neutral issue with respect to publication. The authors should exert some caution, however, in fully extrapolating from the examples they choose -- there are others where the liability is significant.
I recommend the publication of your paper after following improvements:
Could you please comment on the importance of the utilization of Nano-silane technologies? Could you please discuss the chemical background of the repulsive behavior of nano-silane couplings Figure 6 in the text? Is it a common procedure?
What are the major claims of the paper?
Are they novel and will they be of interest to others in the field?
Is the work convincing, and if not, what further evidence would be required to strengthen the conclusions?
Author Response
As per attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Appropriate corrections have been made.