Nanotechnology Applications towards Sustainable Road Surface Maintenance and Effective Asset Protection, Generating Rapid Employment Opportunities in a Post COVID-19 Era
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall an interesting and helpful paper for both academic, industrial, and lay-person readers about the demonstrated benefits of a new important technology. The pictures and cost outline provided a fairly clear picture of the story the authors were trying to tell. Mostly enough details have been provided for readers for logical understanding, but some improvements are suggested:
(1) For the list of important questions about safety for humans, safety for the environment, etc. in the introduction, the authors should give a little more effort than "Every one of these aspects are of importance in the evaluation of new nanotechnology-based products and discussed in some detail in the references." for the safety and concerns about the product they are discussing, especially in light of the provided pictures. What happens if the dust from the nanotech treated surfaces get into workers' lungs during application? Do they need masks? What are the results of this nano-modified dust leeching into ground water on crops, marine life, dry land life, etc.? Please give readers the main take-home points from these references concisely in the bullet point list and don't just tell them to read the references.
(2) What company was chosen to purchase the materials for the documented demonstration in the photos and why? Are certain companies in this area better than others? What should readers consider when choosing vendors for these materials?
(3) Fig. 12 claims to show a "relatively clean hand" and to me the hand looks very dirty. Please give some more explanation here.
(4) Are there any downsides at all to this technology? I get slightly nervous when an academic paper only gives the pros and not the cons of some prototype technology. If no general downsides, as above please give some shopping advice to readers about what to look out for and consider when choosing vendors for the materials.
Author Response
Response included in the attached file - the revised manuscript was improved considerably
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer agrees with authors on the increased potential of nanotechnology applications for pavement maintenance issues. Demonstration examples are given and gained experience is commented to illustrate the technology’s effectiveness. However, the way that the authors chose to present their findings looks more like a technical document rather than a scientific paper. Therefore, further consideration of this paper for potential publication requires major revisions. Apart from this reviewer’s concern on the improvement of the paper’s structure, additional remarks/suggestions for the authors are enlisted below:
- Τhe title is unnecessarily lengthy and vague. Rapid employment opportunities appear to be independent on the scientific soundness of nanotechnology. Besides, related comments are marginally given within the text. Please consider simplifying the title (e.g. Assessment of nanotechnology potentials for sustainable roadway maintenance: challenges and perspectives).
- Abstract: It is given in a descriptive form, and the objective as well as main conclusions/remarks are missing. Please refine with fewer details.
- The objective of the paper is missing. At the end of the introduction, the authors are expected to clearly define their study’s aim (e.g. to demonstrate the efficiency of nanotechnology and highlight challenges and perspectives from the implementation… or something else).
- Surface distress terminology: Please consider using pothole as a single word and alligator cracking instead of crocodile cracking.
- Figure headings are lengthy. It is more common to include rich description within the text and use some hints for the figure headings. Please consider revising.
- Headings of subsections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 are very long and they include references, which could be avoided. Please refine with a view to enabling a good flow for your paper.
Other minor comments:
- Define all abbreviations (e.g. NME – line 23, DIY – line 161) the first time they are being referred to.
- Language edit: Please refine black spots throughout the text (e.g. kits vs kids, change to “these actions” – line 400, change from “fears” to “concerns” – line 325, etc.).
- Author contributions: Please revise according to the suggested MDPI guidelines or consult the editorial office for the eligibility of the current style.
- More than 35% of the references belong to the co-authoring group. Please consider limiting them to the minimum possible extent.
Author Response
The response is included in the attached file. The revised manuscript has been improved considerably.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript name: Nanotechnology applications towards sustainable road surface maintenance and effective asset protection, generating rapid employment opportunities in a post-Covid-19 era
Manuscript ID: Sustainability 2022, 14, x.http//doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
The authors have discussed the nanotechnology material to compare the traditional material for road surface maintenance. The manuscript was utilized the Nano –Silane modified Nano Polymers (NSNP) via the field tests.
In this study, it was mentioned modified polymer for providing water resistance and restoring craked surfacing. It was given some manuscript test results which are used penetration and slip resistance test.
According to results, it was seen that when the nanotechnology product compared with traditional products, it was not only easy to implementation of labor-intensive operation but also prevent road surface deterioration, reduction of water damage to the substructure, and cost-saving.
In the evaluation of the aforementioned study, the following query and suggestions should be considered.
1- The authors should give the info about the flowchart of the study.
2- Keywords should be shortened because they are unnecessarily long.
3- Repeated expressions should be avoided.
4- Abbreviations should be shown in the abstract.
5- Titles should be renewed after introduction (purpose, scope, discussion, method, etc.)
6- It should be stated where the materials were obtained from.
7- The technical specifications of the materials should be shown. (Physical and chemical properties)
8- The application areas of the material should be expressed. Examples of where it has been used before should be given.
9- What is the usage percentage compared to similar materials?
10- Which standard was carried out for the preparation of modified polymers?
11- The titles of the figures should be rearranged as they are too long.
12- Figure 2 was rearranged again because of size.
13- The Figures description is too long, so it should be shortened and the broad description included later.
14- The Tables description is too long, so it should be shortened and the broad description included later.
15- Table 1 should be simplified and rearranged.
16- The pictures in Figure 6 should be numbered.
17- In Figure 7, the difference between ab and ba is not understood and the same expression is included in the explanation.
18- Table 2 is based on the citation. The time frame should be evaluated over a long period.
19- Explanations on preparation, transportation, application temperatures, and surface temperatures are insufficient.
20- Case studies and in which types of deterioration give better results should be evaluated from a broad perspective.
21- It should be clearly explained at which depths and in which environmental conditions it gives better results.
It has been seen that the field studies in the article are based on citations. No laboratory experiment is included in the study. The authors should support the work with their field and laboratory experiments. Experimental studies are insufficient. Some performance tests should be applied. The molecular component and structure should be determined by applying the FTIR test. Furthermore, it can be applied AFM test for a better understanding of the surface interaction of polymers.
Consequently; Data on the study conducted by the authors are insufficient. To make the results more comprehensible according to the usage area of the material, some experiments should be done. Furthermore, for this reason, the reviewer's opinion; the manuscript is not suitable for acceptance in this journal due to the comments reported above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer's comments were handled. The authors are now recommended to give some indications for the long-term maintenance efficiency of the claimed severely-distressed roadways. Are the rehabilitated pavements monitored in terms of their surface condition evolution and structural soundness after the maintenance treatments? If not, the authors should potentially add such issues as future research prospects, together with other implications for life-cycle analysis for the restored pavements. In that way, they can argue better in favour of the efficiency of nanotechnology applications and demonstrate an evaluation from a broader perspective. In addition, please improve the clarity of Figure 1.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My earlier opinion regarding the manuscript in question has not changed.
The answers given to me by the authors are not satisfactory.
The article needs to be developed. I think that it is insufficient and therefore not suitable for acceptable.
