Differentiation Study of the Damage Characteristics of Rock Cultural Heritage Sites Due to the Sulfate Weathering Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author's work (Differentiation Study of Damage Characteristics of Rock Cultural Heritages under Sulfate Weathering Process) generally represents a good contribution to the field of study. Nevertheless, specific corrections and clarifications must be addressed before the manuscript can be deemed suitable for publication. Certain sections would benefit from additional information to support the author's claims and strengthen the research findings. There are areas where further clarification is needed to enhance the reader's understanding. Below are my comments and questions.
I'm looking forward to receiving your clarifications and explanations, which I suggest you incorporate into the relevant sections of your manuscript.
Rewrite the abstract part, including the following points/corrections
1. In the analysis of changes in wave velocity, hardness, composition, and pore size distribution, were there any unexpected findings or trends that emerged from the data?
2. Please elaborate on the Entropy weight-TOPSIS method used to evaluate the degree of damage to the sandstone and limestone. How were the weighting factors determined, and what was the rationale behind this choice?
Rewrite the 2.1. Preparation of Test Samples and Determination of Physical Properties section, including the following points/corrections.
1. When mentioning the limestone used for the restoration of the Mingzu Mausoleum statues in Huai'an, can you provide information about the geological characteristics of the Sishui County, Jining City, Shandong Province? Is there any particular geological significance or unique properties of this limestone that are relevant to the study?
2. It's mentioned that both types of rock samples were prepared into 50 mm cubic specimens following specific guidelines. Can you elaborate on the details of this preparation process, such as the methods and equipment used?
3. Please provide more information about the engineering standard DZT 0276-2015. What specific guidelines or procedures were followed in the measurements?
4. In what way do the ultrasonic testing equipment, Leeb hardness tester, and electro-hydraulic universal testing machine collectively help assess the macroscopic properties of the rocks? How do these properties relate to the research goals?
5. Can you provide more details about the specific information obtained through ultrasonic testing equipment, Leeb hardness testing, and uniaxial compressive strength measurements? How do these measurements contribute to understanding the rock samples?
6. Could you elaborate on the reason for using a "soaking-resting" cycle in the simulation tests? What does this cycle mimic in terms of real-world weathering conditions?
Rewrite the 3.1.1. Apparent Morphology section, including the following points/corrections.
1. 1. Can you clarify the time units or duration of each cycle and how the apparent morphology of the sandstone and limestone samples changes during these cycles? What is the significance of the observed characteristics at different cycle stages?
2. 2. Are there specific measurements or data related to the damage or changes in apparent morphology that can be provided? How does the "volume change rate" of the sandstone samples relate to the observed damage?
3. 3. What might be the cause of the edge damage and particle detachment observed in the limestone samples? Does this relate to specific environmental conditions or weathering mechanisms?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish corrections are required to enhance the quality of the paper, and here are some of the suggested corrections.
In Abstract section
Original: "The pore damage factor and macro indicators of the rock samples..."
Improved: "The pore damage factor and macro-level indicators of the rock samples..."
Original: "The damage degree and weathering thickness of sandstone were much greater than that of limestone..."
Improved: "Sandstone exhibited significantly greater damage and weathering thickness compared to limestone..."
In 2.1. Preparation of Test Samples and Determination of Physical Properties section
Original: "The limestone utilized for the restoration of the Mingzu Mausoleum statues in Huai'an corresponds to the limestone found in Sishui County, Jining City, Shandong Province."
Improved: "The limestone chosen for restoring the Mingzu Mausoleum statues in Huai'an originates from Sishui County, Jining City, Shandong Province."
Original: "This rock formation is characterized by distinct layering, devoid of any noticeable fractures or folds. It primarily consists of thick layers of blocky red sandstone from the Jurassic-Cretaceous Jiaguan Formation."
Improved: "This rock formation primarily consists of thick, distinct layers of blocky red sandstone from the Jurassic-Cretaceous Jiaguan Formation, with no noticeable fractures or folds."
Original: "The specimens were subsequently washed with deionized water to remove any surface debris and to eliminate samples with noticeable visual discrepancies."
Improved: "The specimens were thoroughly washed with deionized water to remove any surface debris, ensuring the exclusion of samples displaying noticeable visual discrepancies."
Author Response
Response to Reviewers
Firstly, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers for their diligent review of our manuscript. Their valuable comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our work. In response to the reviewers' comments, we have made significant revisions to the text and figures. However, we want to emphasize that the core essence of the manuscript remains unchanged. We are confident that the revised manuscript is now significantly improved compared to the original version. We would greatly appreciate it if the editors and reviewers could provide further feedback and suggestions for the final publication.
Please check the attachment for detailed feedback.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsl. 72: Maybe add to «rock weakening diseases”, or similar? (to be a little more precise compared to the common biological meaning of “disease”
l.142-143: Rather: “The samples were divided into 6 groups each containing 5 pieces, all together 30 pieces of sandstone and 30 pieces of limestone.” ?
l.145-149: The description just above describes a “cycle” as 72 hours, with 24 h soaking and 48 h in the “test chamber”.
Then: “intervals of 5 cycles”. An interval is “an intervening time, pause or break”. Should it here be “periods of 5 cycles” ?
Then: “After every 5 cycles, a group of sandstone and limestone samples were placed into the test chamber.”
It was described as every cycle contained a period of 48 h in the “test chamber”. What was then the change in the use of a “test chamber” after every 5 cycles?
Measurement of weathering parameters “upon completion of all cycles” and “after different cycle numbers”. It this measurements “upon completion of all cycles in intervals of 5 cycles, that is after 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 cycles”.. ?
- This description of the tests must be improved, it is now not possible to understand.
l. 194: In the initial phase the mass of sandstone is observed in fig. 6 to decrease, after 5 cycles due to the “destruction caused by salt crystallization”, and then increase due to the factors described in point 2. This is not possible to see for the limestone at this scale – please change it to the second vertical axis with a proper scale to show the change for the limestone.
L.196: Would it be useful to here to write “2. Formation of sulfate crystals……..” to explain that some of the mass addition is also due to the addition of sulfate from the soaking solution..?
l.199-201: It seems from Fig. 6 that this mass decrease will be after 25 cycles – this should be noted: “In the later stage of salt weathering, after 25 cycles in the experiments, the……..”
Eq. (1): For Rs to be noted a “rate” it should be written that is “represents the mass change rate over the exposure time”.
Fig. 6: The fig. does not show the Rate of mass change, but simply the Mass change. The rate of mass change is the derivative of the shown curve: DMass change / D cycles(time). The increase in the mass of the limestone cannot be observed in the figure at the same scale as of sandstone, so I recommend that this is rather given on the second vertical axis with a different scale. The two decimals in the vertical axis number are not needed. Please correct/adjust this and other figures.
L.217. Again, this exponential decline fo the limestone hardness would be easier/possible to observe if the limestone is rather shown by the second vertical axis.
l.230-231: The decay rate follows a pattern of "fast-rapid-slow-stable," Please not the respective cycles: The decay rate follows a pattern of change during the cycles (#-#) of "fast ()-rapid ()-slow ()-stable (),"
Figure 7B: The figure shows the “Hardnes loss” not the “Hardnes loss rate”, which is ~0 of the sandstone after 10 days. Please amend.
l.236: “P-wave measurements”. Explain this briefly where the measurement the wave velocity is described in Section 2.1.
l.245: As no statistical measures of the significance of the noted difference is provided, the difference should rater be described as “notable”, “markedly different” or similar. – Or provide a significance measure – probably then from a t-test. Please review the use of “significant” throughout.
l.246-247: Again, this is not a loss of rate but simply of the P-wave value. Please review the use of the term “rate” throughout the manuscript for correct use.
L.253: Punctuation: …..Fig. 9. Let's first…
l.266: This was explained before and in a comparison of all the measurer properties as reported in this results section should rather be in the Discussion section. Remove this sentence here and simply give the compression results.
l.266-269: if this study “solely explores the failure modes of fresh limestone and limestone samples after 25 cycles”, and as it is described in the following sentences and shown in Fig. 9 that the failure after 25 days are notable, then the statement in l. 267-268, that “the characteristics of uniaxial compression failure at different cycle numbers are not significant” lacks any evidence. Please provide some explanation, proof of this, or remove this sentence and only report the actual findings.
l.273: Please note in figure text which pictures are sandstone and limestone: “Figure 9. Uniaxial Compression Failure Characteristics of Sandstone (a-f) and Limestone (g-h) under Sulfate Erosion”
l.274 This heading is the same as in l.250. Should it be: “Unconfined Compressive Strength” ? Figure text 10a. Same issue. Please review also main text.
Eq. 3: Please place “´” correctly on line.
l.303.304: Please include: “……….components in two types of rocks, obtained from the X-ray diffraction analysis.”
l.303-307: This change in the calcite and dolomite content is impossible to see for a reader in Figure 11a. Rather, the most prominent dolomite peak is the smallest after 15 cycles? Please use for example open diamonds for the dolomite, the legend symbols are very different to distinguish. It seems needed to add some numerical results of peak areas of dolomite/calcite, possibly in connected table to show these differences.
L.311-316: See comment above: please include numerical tabulated measures of the changes in the peak areas with exposure cycles. Please include in text, where first used “feldspar minerals (albite, microcline)”
l.319-320: If this table (3) is meant to exclude the dolomite and calcite please note that from the start. Also now the instrumental analysis method used also here : “To quantitatively analyze the changes in composition content of rock samples, except of the calcite and dolomite that were shown in Figure 11 (+ added table of with numerical comparison) at different cycle times, a table was created form the performed X-ray analysis (?)……………..”
l.327-328: This should be note in the start of the paragraph, delete it here.
l.339-340: This explanation is difficult to understand. What is this deviation (l.341)? Should the the porosity of sandstone probably be more than 15% higher than that of limestone, due to this deviation? L.347-348: is this the difference in growth rates or simply the difference in the increase in the porosity after the 20, or 25, cycles? Why is the final no. of cycles different in Fig 12 a and 12 b? Does the “deviation” imply that this difference between the increase in the pore volume of the sandstone and limestone is probably larger. If this is so it may be better to note here, in the Results section, that “experimental uncertainty could imply that this difference is larger (see Discussion)”, and than include such discussions of uncertainty there.
Figure 12: The vertical axis text should be “Pore proportion”. Please remove decimal “0” in vertical axis numbers.
l.354: Was the mirabilite detected in the x-ray diffraction? How was its occurrence changing over the exposure cycles?
l.351-377: This part giving the theoretical background with references should be moved forward to the Introduction or following Introduction new Theoretical section.
All equations: The units should be given with the parameters explanations
l.379….. the relationship curves between the pore damage factor, as it increased with the exposure cycles (?) , and macroscopic……….
l.382-383: Better: The changes in the macro index values with the pore pore damage factor can be fitted……
l.387: from the figures the “magnitude of change” from slow to fast (a) and fast to slow (b) does not seem different, but quite similar? Please provide a numerical comparison of the start and end derivatives if keeping this description..
l.392-396: please describe briefly how infrared examination can also provide such data as this method was not described before or used in the experiments (?) in this work ..
l.408-410: How can a (mathematical) solution (that is a value) have a proximity to a “distance”? Please describe better. What are the “best and worst solutions”? The least weathered and most weathered solutions?
l.401-422, 432-435: This description of the theory should be moved forward, probably to a separate Theoretical section after the Discussion (see comment to l 351-357) - or possibly as part of the Methods section. Please consider the best option. The description of the formulae parameters is incomplete. Importantly, the final calculated parameters Ci and Vi (weight factors, Vi? – of weathering indicators Ci ) are not properly described.
L.425:……. change rate is the highest, for limestone………..
l.474: please combine each function description with the parameter descriptions.; “….. exponential function for wave velocity, exponential function for surface hardness, and linear function for compressive strength.”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome improvements of language is needed, but especially in relation to some explanations that are poor (see comments)
Author Response
Response to Reviewers
Firstly, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers for their diligent review of our manuscript. Their valuable comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our work. In response to the reviewers' comments, we have made significant revisions to the text and figures. However, we want to emphasize that the core essence of the manuscript remains unchanged. We are confident that the revised manuscript is now significantly improved compared to the original version. We would greatly appreciate it if the editors and reviewers could provide further feedback and suggestions for the final publication.
Please check the attachment for detailed feedback
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this instance of the second review the reviewer only gives an example of problems that are still present in the presentation of this work. Such unclarities in the presentations, and inaccurate and erroneous explanations, as exemplified below should preferably be corrected through the paper before publication.
Fig 7: The legend symbols of the sandstone and limestone are opposite in figures 7a and 7b which is confusing.
l.251-252: “In the initial stage of the experiment, the mass of both sandstone and limestone increased.” Figure 7 shows increase for the sandstone after 5 cycles but a continuous decrease (increased mass loss) of the limestone over all the cycles??
L 259. It should be noted that it was the mass change rate, as given by the curve fitting to the mass loss over the cycling periods, that showed an exponential increase. Actually, the experimental curve shows a mass increase after 5 cycles (of only the sandstone – not of both the sandstone and limestone as written in l. 251(?)), then a near linear increase in the mass loss of the sandstone. It seems from this doubtful/artificial/wrong description of the shown to describe the total development of the experimental mass loss from the start as exponential. It is rather “an initial mass increase at 5 cycles and then a near linear mass loss”.
Also, the exponential dependance of the shown fitted curve is of the mass change (mainly loss), not of the “the mass change rate of the sandstone” (l. 259). The rate of the change would be the derivative of the shown curve. The (exponential) fitting to the curve in the figure does thus not show the dependence of the “rate of the change of the mass loss” on the number of cycles as is said. It looks rather that this change in the rate, of the fitted curve (), depending on the number of cycles is close to linear, rather than exponential, but this is not possible to see from the figure, as the rate of change of the exponential fit is not directly given, but must be assessed from its curvature. However, the reviewer thinks it was not actually the intention of the authors to fit the curve to the change in the rate (as written), but rather the change in the mass loss (as shown in the figure). Still, this is inconsistent and wrong in the explanation, and thus unsatisfactory.
An explanation of the relevance of/reason for this exponential curve fitting should anyway also be provided if using it, considering the, different from exponential, experimental values of initial mass increase and then near linear mass loss (as also described above)..
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage seems ok, but the explanations and presentations of the results are in several instances not in accordance.
Author Response
First and foremost, the authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers for their diligent review of the manuscript. Taking into account the invaluable feedback received, the authors have made revisions to the text and some figures while ensuring that the essence of the manuscript remains unchanged. Presently, the authors are confident that the revised version surpasses the original and would greatly appreciate any additional comments or suggestions from the editors and reviewers to further enhance its suitability for publication.
As for the detail point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments，please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
