Adhesion Performance between Solid Waste and Bitumen Based on Surface Energy Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents a comparative evaluation of materials for the production of bituminous conglomerates.
Glass and ceramic materials are considered in comparison with limestone aggregates considered as a reference.
The analysis of the mineralogical and chemical composition of the three materials considered is interesting.
The comparative analysis of the mechanical properties is of little significance.
In the writer's opinion, the comparison of the three materials must be carried out according to the size with which the materials enter the composition of asphalt concrete.
Page 6 | Line 146 - Although these are Chinese standards, the authors should best describe the tests for determining the Crushing value and the Wearing value. So that any reader (of other nationalities) can understand what kind of tests are performed on the three materials. In this form, the results of fig. 6 are not easily decoded.
Page 8 | Line 201 - The proposed study related to the adhesion forces is very interesting. However, the authors must correct the use of the word "asphalt" by which they mean the bituminous binder, and replace it not with the word "bitumen" (both in the text and in the images of the whole manuscript!). The word "asphalt" generally identifies the mixture of aggregates and bitumen.
Page 14 | 5.4 Overview - There is a contradiction in terms in the analysis of the results of the E.R parameter: i) Line 339 - "A large ER value generally contributes to the superior water damage resistance of this type of asphalt mixture"; ii) Line 348 - "A large ER value leads to superior moisture susceptibility of the mixture". Is it a superior water damage resistance or superior moisture susceptibility?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
A very interesting manuscript examining the adhesion performance between asphalt and alternative aggregates based on surface energy theory, and pertinent adhesion and spalling models. However, the article has several shortfalls that need to be addressed:
· It is not clear what is the novelty and/or innovation of this work?
The authors need to make the case of novelty of their work otherwise this research seems to be rather a “case study” of applying existing surface energy theory and pertinent models to assess the effects of using two specific recycled materials (glass and ceramics) as alternative aggregates.
· The authors claim that “The type of asphalt has minimal effects on the adhesion performance of asphalt mixtures.” However, the study considered only two binder types (#70 and SBS modified). Thus, such generalized claims could be highly questionable.
· The authors make claim on the potential performance of asphalt mixtures based on the interaction between binder and aggregates. However, such findings have not be “validated” by actually testing mixtures performance either in the lab or field conditions simulating alternative degree of durability.
· Similarly, in the Conclusions section, (page 15, lines 264), the authors claim that “Consequently, waste glass and waste ceramics are suitable for areas with a considerable amount of rainfall and insufficient drainage systems.” Another hypothesis that need to be verified with actual asphalt mixture experimentation in the lab and/or better in field conditions to validate such generalized conclusions.
· Page 10 line 282-290: Authors need to provide insides of the “sessile drop method” and details on the determination of the contact angles measured experimentally.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Chemical and mechanical properties of MK-based geopolymers 2 with waste corundum powder resulting from erosion testing
Abstract:
Poorly written (incomplete sentences, needs major rewriting for sense and flow), tell me WHY this needs to be published.
Components (objective/ methods/results/conclusions) missing or unclear. WHY what is your contribution, explain the novelties.
The subject matter is of major interest only if the paper is substantially revised
1. Introduction
Needs major rewriting for sense and flow. Be more concise, and focus on the problem.
Hypothesis and objective not clearly stated;
What are the gaps and missing parts, why is this research, and what is the additional contribution to the field?
Inadequate references (but could be fixed via lit review)
Remark:
This article investigates the use of waste glass and waste ceramics in asphalt mixtures based on the above analysis. Tests and analyses of chemical and mineral compositions will be added for the basic properties of waste glass and waste ceramics. Surface energy theory will also be used to establish the adhesion and spalling models to examine the adhesion performance between asphalt and glass or asphalt and ceramics to further determine their moisture susceptibility.
Tell me why you made these choices and why. What are the novelty and your contribution?
•Materials:
Chemical composition
Description of procedures needs minor clarification (clearly remediable)
Remark:
• Statistical significance of the data and measurements are not stated.
Mineral composition:
The analysis results are shown in Table 1., How many tests and samples were used?
• Figures need major revision, unreadable. What do you want to show with these images?
Physical properties
The statistical significance of the data and measurements are not stated.
Mechanical properties
Figure 5. Raw material preparation, add a scale bar.
Methodology:
Description of procedures unclear; would be difficult for others to reproduce the study by reading the article, although with major rewriting, the deficit could be remedied
Results:
The statistical significance of the data and measurements are not stated.
“Why/How/What, significant results should be highlighted”
Discussion:
Statements, goals, and conclusions could be more supported by data; rewriting could address this
“Why/How/What, significant results should be highlighted”
• Some study implications and/or limitations are missing or not clearly presented
• Study has the potential to advance knowledge if the paper is rewritten and key components are clearly presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be published in the new version
Author Response
Thank you for approving our manuscript. We were very happy to see your comments and we would continue to work hard to make more excellent articles published.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors addressed technical aspect of the manuscript. Two issues pending:
Innovation point 2: We use solid waste to replace the traditional aggregates in the road, which solves the two major problems of solid waste treatment and ecological civilization protection at the same time. This research direction is innovative.
Hundreds to thousand studies have and/or are addressing the use of solid waste materials for replacing traditional aggerates. Thus, this does not classify as an innovation.
English: authors need to seek technical profession editing. Furthermore, writing style is a concern. Examples include:
Line 501 – “We used boiling……. Indirect writing speech for manuscripts
Line 537 – “We also done….. Indirect writing speech for manuscripts
Line 540 – “The details are in “Fundamental properties of asphalt mixture containing municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash[28]”. – not properly referenced within the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
After rev
Chemical and mechanical properties of MK-based geopolymers with waste corundum powder resulting from erosion testing
Abstract:
The subject matter is of interest and well revised
This article can promote the recycling of glass and ceramics and provide a research idea for verifying the suitability of other solid waste in asphalt pavement.”
Remark, the limited amount of tests only gives you some trends. More intensive research is still needed.
Introduction
Hypothesis and objective stated, ok.
•Materials:
Chemical composition
Descriptions of procedures are fine.
Remark: add scales to images.
Results:
The statistical significance of the data and measurements are stated.
Each physical index test was conducted twice, and the final result was equal to the average value of the sum of data of two tests, D-value of data of two apparent density measurements not exceeding 2%, D-value of data of two water absorption measurements not exceeding 0.2% and D-value of data of two content of needle and flake-shaped particles measurements not exceeding 20%.
Remark: a limited amount of tests, be careful with the conclusions.
Discussion:
Statements, goals, and conclusions are supported by data.
Although a limited amount of tests make it difficult to state conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
