Preparation and Performance of Ultra-Fine High Activity Composite Micronized Powder from Multi-Solid Waste
Sergio García Dalí
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a study on developing a high performance composite micronized powder from multiple industrial solid wastes including blast furnace slag, manganese tailing slag, water quenched manganese slag and desulfurization gypsum. The authors systematically investigated the effects of varying proportions of these wastes on properties like fluidity, mechanical strength, chloride resistance etc. using an orthogonal experimental design. Optimal dosages were determined to achieve good 28-day strength as well as fluidity and chloride resistance. The composite powder blended with cement showed lowered hydration heat and improved microstructure compared to plain cement. The paper is well-written with a clear methodology. The characterization techniques and analysis of results are appropriate. However, the practical applicability of the developed composite powder should be demonstrated through testing of mortar/concrete samples. Also, comparison with other similar binders and discussion on economic viability will improve the manuscript.
Comments:
- In the introduction, please provide more background on the typical composition, structure and reactivity of the specific industrial wastes used in this study.
- On page 2, the statement "BFS powder is smaller than the cement particles, it can displace the filling water filled between cement particles" needs more explanation on how the particle size influences flow.
- On page 3, the authors state that manganese tailing slag adjusts the pH - please explain the mechanism for this pH modification.
- In Section 2.2, please provide more details on the curing conditions (temperature, humidity etc) for the test specimens.
- On page 5, the statement "The thickness of the water film layer and the number of surface layer water are the main factors affecting the fluidity of the slurry" should be referenced.
- On page 6, the decrease and then increase in 28 d strength with slag dosage is interesting - is there a compositional/structural reason for this?
- For Figure 2, please explain the anomalous point of mix F11 which shows very high 7 d strength - is this mix optimized in anyway?
- In section 3.2.1, please include a figure showing the hydration curves along with the numerical reduction data.
- In the conclusions section, the optimal mix proportions determined could be explicitly specified for clarity.
- Please provide details on the specific surface area and particle size distribution of the composite powder - how do they compare with OPC?
- Were any chemical analyses like XRD done to understand the phases and chemical interactions?
- How was the grindability and milling efficiency of the composite powder mixture compared to plain slag?
- What standards were used for testing the mechanical properties and durability indicators? Please specify.
- What was the density and workability of mortar prepared with the composite powder?
- What is the expected cost advantage in using the developed composite binder compared to OPC?
- It is suggested to take advantage of research insights “https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01615; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01495” to update the manuscript reference with the latest studies to improve its comprehensiveness and up-to-dateness.
- Have any concretes been prepared and tested using this composite powder?
- What is the scope for optimization of the production process for practical applications?
- How stable is the composite powder in terms of shelf life and storage?
- On page 10, the statement on microstructure needs suitable references.
- Please provide some practical recommendations on utilization of the developed composite binder.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing
Author Response
Reviewer #1
1.In the introduction, please provide more background on the typical composition, structure and reactivity of the specific industrial wastes used in this study.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this problem. In order to provide more sufficient reasons for the work done, the introduction have been revised. The background has been expanded in the introduction on 2 page of the revision
- On page 2, the statement "BFS powder is smaller than the cement particles, it can displace the filling water filled between cement particles" needs more explanation on how the particle size influences flow.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. The author has supplemented some explanations, but the author mainly refers to the research of others, and cannot make a more in-depth explanation due to limited ability.( Lines 148-152)
3.On page 3, the authors state that manganese tailing slag adjusts the pH - please explain the mechanism for this pH modification.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. This is because the common valence states of manganese are +2, +3, +4, +6, which can be combined with OH-, H+ to form different ion forms in the solution to achieve the effect of adjusting PH.
4.In Section 2.2, please provide more details on the curing conditions (temperature, humidity etc) for the test specimens.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. The curing conditions have been supplemented. ( Lines 96-98)
5.On page 5, the statement "The thickness of the water film layer and the number of surface layer water are the main factors affecting the fluidity of the slurry" should be referenced.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. This part of the reference has been supplemented. .( Line 152)
6.On page 6, the decrease and then increase in 28 d strength with slag dosage is interesting - is there a compositional/structural reason for this?
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. Yes, because the main component of slag is highly active glass phase aluminosilicate, it can promote the formation of more high-strength hydration products such as hydrated calcium silicate and hydrated calcium aluminate in the later stage of cement.
7.For Figure 2, please explain the anomalous point of mix F11 which shows very high 7 d strength - is this mix optimized in anyway?
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. F11 shows a higher 7d strength is normal, and has not been optimized, because the ratio is close to the optimal ratio, both contain higher blast furnace slag and manganese tailings slag and an appropriate amount of desulfurization gypsum.
8.In section 3.2.1, please include a figure showing the hydration curves along with the numerical reduction data.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I 've added the peak value data of the hydration heat release characteristics picture.( Fig.6 )
9.In the conclusions section, the optimal mix proportions determined could be explicitly specified for clarity.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. The optimal mix proportions has been added. ( Lines 354-355 )
10.Please provide details on the specific surface area and particle size distribution of the composite powder - how do they compare with OPC?
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. The specific surface area and particle size distribution of the composite powder have been attached to the manuscript. ( Lines 270-271, Fig.4 )
11.Were any chemical analyses like XRD done to understand the phases and chemical interactions?
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. The XRD pattern of the composite powder has been supplemented. ( Fig.5 )
12.How was the grindability and milling efficiency of the composite powder mixture compared to plain slag?
Response: Thank you for the comment. The composite powder mixture is easier to grind than plain slag. On the one hand, it is because of the addition of 0.3 % grinding aid. On the other hand, the hardness of water quenched manganese slag is smaller than that of blast furnace slag.
13.What standards were used for testing the mechanical properties and durability indicators? Please specify.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. Mechanical properties according to the standard GB/T 17671-1999 " cement mortar strength test method (ISO method)", durability indicators according to ASTM C1202 testing method of electric flux. ( Lines 99-100, Lines 107-109, )
14.What was the density and workability of mortar prepared with the composite powder?
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I 'm sorry, we did not test the specific data of these two properties, but during the experiment, we found that it was not much different from ordinary cement mortar.
15.What is the expected cost advantage in using the developed composite binder compared to OPC?
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. The mechanical properties of the composite binder prepared by replacing half of the cement with composite micropowder are comparable to those of OPC, while the composite micropowder is prepared from all-solid waste, which reduces the amount of cement on the one hand, and on the other hand, these solid wastes are treated. We all know that the cost of cement is much higher than that of these solid wastes, so using the developed composite binder is not only economical but also environmentally friendly.
16.It is suggested to take advantage of research insights “https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01615; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01495” to update the manuscript reference with the latest studies to improve its comprehensiveness and up-to-dateness.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I 'm very sorry, I can 't open this URL, I don 't know what you mean.
17.Have any concretes been prepared and tested using this composite powder?
Response: Thank you for the comment. At present, we only use composite powder to make mortar test block.
18.What is the scope for optimization of the production process for practical applications?
Response: Thank you for the comment. I 'm sorry, at present, we only carried out experiments in the laboratory, there may be many factors in the practical application, but I think we can according to the actual requirements of fluidity and mechanical strength to adjust the mix ratio.
19.How stable is the composite powder in terms of shelf life and storage?
Response: Thank you for the comment. The prepared composite powder can be stored for five months under sealed drying conditions without much fluctuation in performance.
20.On page 10, the statement on microstructure needs suitable references.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I cited the corresponding reference. ( References 26, 27)
21.Please provide some practical recommendations on utilization of the developed composite binder.
Response: Thank you for the comment. If the particle size distribution of the composite powder can be adjusted to make the particles of different particle sizes form a close accumulation effect to fill the gap of the cementitious material, the strength of the cementitious material will be further improved. In addition, if the composite powder can be made finer, combined with silicon powder and fiber, it may be used to prepare ultra-high performance concrete.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article titled "Preparation and Performance of Ultra-Fine High Activity Composite Micronized Powder from Multi-Solid Waste" represents a substantial contribution. After a comprehensive review of the manuscript, I recommend proceeding with its publication. However, there are some minor issues that need to be addressed to further improve the overall quality and readability of the paper.
Changes that must be made before publication:
1. The Abstract section should be rewritten with more precision. The current abstract fails to provide a comprehensive overview of the study.
2. Please provide an elemental study of the synthesized composite micronized powder using either EDX (Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis) or XPS (X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy).
3. How is the porosity of the material measured after curing? Has BET analysis been used?
4. The layout of the article and figure captions should be revised, and the language should be improved.
5. It would be beneficial to incorporate the following references:
a) Performance of Building Solid Waste Powder in Cement Cementitious Material: A Review. Materials (Basel). 2022 Aug; 15(15): 5408. b) Laboratory Preparation and Performance Characterization of Steel Slag Ultrafine Powder Used in Cement-Based Materials. Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 14951. C) Quality properties of self-consolidating concrete mixed with waste concrete powder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017;135:177–185. D) Experimental Study on Properties of Geopolymer Stabilized Macadam Base Materials Prepared by Recycled Micropowder. New Build. Mater. 2020;47:41–45. E) Design of ‘tolerant and hard’superhydrophobic coatings to freeze physical deformation. Materials Horizons 8 (10), 2717-2725. F) Rapid and scalable synthesis of a vanillin-based organogelator and its durable composite for a comprehensive remediation of crude-oil spillages. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13 (39), 46803-46812.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
This suggests that there are minor revisions needed to enhance the quality of the English language used in the text. These revisions may include addressing issues related to grammar, word choice, and sentence structure to ensure that the content is clear, well-structured, and free from language-related errors. The goal of these edits is to improve the readability and overall quality of the document while maintaining the integrity of the content.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
- The Abstract section should be rewritten with more precision. The current abstract fails to provide a comprehensive overview of the study.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I have revised the abstract part of the manuscript.
- Please provide an elemental study of the synthesized composite micronized powder using either EDX (Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis) or XPS (X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy).
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. Because the manuscript already has the XPS test data of the raw material, I think it is better to provide the XRD pattern of the composite powder. ( Fig.5 )
- How is the porosity of the material measured after curing? Has BET analysis been used?
Response: Thank you for the comment. MIP assessment is one of the most common methods for studying the pore structure of cement-based materials. At present, we do not use BET analysis.
- The layout of the article and figure captions should be revised, and the language should be improved.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I have improved this.
- It would be beneficial to incorporate the following references:
- A) Performance of Building Solid Waste Powder in Cement Cementitious Material: A Review. Materials (Basel). 2022 Aug; 15(15): 5408. b) Laboratory Preparation and Performance Characterization of Steel Slag Ultrafine Powder Used in Cement-Based Materials. Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 14951. C) Quality properties of self-consolidating concrete mixed with waste concrete powder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017;135:177–185. D) Experimental Study on Properties of Geopolymer Stabilized Macadam Base Materials Prepared by Recycled Micropowder. New Build. Mater. 2020;47:41–45. E) Design of ‘tolerant and hard’superhydrophobic coatings to freeze physical deformation. Materials Horizons 8 (10), 2717-2725. F) Rapid and scalable synthesis of a vanillin-based organogelator and its durable composite for a comprehensive remediation of crude-oil spillages. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13 (39), 46803-46812.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I have read these references, learned a lot of knowledge, and cited the reference.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors prepared composite micronized materials from the combination of different solid wastes. In particular, they studied the effect of doping amount of each solid waste on the fluidity, activity at different ages and resistance to chloride ion penetration of the composite micropowder, as well as the exothermic characteristics of hydration of the composite micropowder with the optimal ratio (35% BFS, 30% MTS, 0.3% GS, 5% DG and 30% WQMS). Although the authors prepared several samples and different properties were tested, several issues related to the experimental design have been found. The mentioned issue and other questions are included in detail in the next comments.
1. Some mistakes have been made in the abstract. Such as the use of “Abrasive stimulant” instead of “grinding stimulant”, or the use of brackets in “(MTS)” and “(BFS)”.
2. The introduction needs to be revised deeply. It must be extended, completed with more references and improved grammatically, as well as some mistakes should be corrected. Specifically, a general first paragraph related to solid wastes, which introduce the idea and put into context the described solid wastes, is missed. The first acronym (BSF) is bad written and the WQMS should be described before, as well as many links between sentences are necessary (like “however, on the other hand,…”. Moreover, I suggest reorganizing the introduction talking about each solid waste separately, instead of talking about the context of everyone and then talking about their characteristics.
3. It is not explained why the authors choose the ratio 1:1 with OPC, neither the proportion of the 4 solid wastes shown in Table 2. Furthermore, the considered optimal proportion is reached at the maximum proportion of A, B and C tested. Meaning that optimal proportion was not reached.
4. Authors argue that they use WQMS as the main component according to the experimental experience. A specific reference is missed here.
5. WQMS was chosen as main component of high active composite micronized powder. However, its proportion is lower than other components in F15 and F16. Furthermore, its proportion vary widely (from 62 to 27 %) along all samples, while it was described as the second material in terms of activity. Based on that, WQMS should have been tested as “E” factor in the experimental design, since its proportion could affect significantly to the final activity. Alternatively, the proportion of WQMS should have been fixed at a certain value in order to ensure it as main component, as well as to discard it as other factor to take into account.
6. Although the properties studied are well rationalized, any of them has been described before being tested. For example, What is activity index? Is it related with the other properties? Moreover, compressive strength results are shown in Table 4, but there is no discussion about that.
7. The text in lines 128-135 is not grammatically well redacted. I recommend to rewrite it. Moreover, some references are missed when the role of GS and DG in section 3.1.1. are discussed.
8. I suggest to move the section 3.1.2 “Effect of Factors on the Activity of Composite Micronized Powder” as section 3.1.3, since the Activity was chosen as main property to select the best sample to mix with OPC.
9. It is mentioned in line 179 that WQMS provide as one of the main active materials of composite micronized powder. However, as I said in comment 5, WQMS is not discussed in the text.
10. It is not discussed in the text why 28 d activity index is worse than 7 d activity index.
11. The discussion in lines 238-243 is not clear. I recommend to rewrite it.
12. It is not explained how the discussed properties affects to the hydration characteristics of Cementitious Materials. It is only affected by the activity? If not, why “optimal” proportions towards activity index were chosen to be studied as hydration characteristics of Cementitious Materials? If yes, why the other properties were studied?
13. Units of the axes in Figure 4 are presented with different format. Moreover, input image in Figure 4a is not described, as well as its axes are missed.
14. It is missed an initial conclusion paragraph which includes a general sum up.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Some English skills must be improved. English comments are included in the attached word.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
1.Some mistakes have been made in the abstract. Such as the use of “Abrasive stimulant” instead of “grinding stimulant”, or the use of brackets in “(MTS)” and “(BFS)”.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. We 've noticed this and changed it
- The introduction needs to be revised deeply. It must be extended, completed with more references and improved grammatically, as well as some mistakes should be corrected. Specifically, a general first paragraph related to solid wastes, which introduce the idea and put into context the described solid wastes, is missed. The first acronym (BSF) is bad written and the WQMS should be described before, as well as many links between sentences are necessary (like “however, on the other hand,…”. Moreover, I suggest reorganizing the introduction talking about each solid waste separately, instead of talking about the context of everyone and then talking about their characteristics.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I have reorganized the introduction according to your suggestion.
- It is not explained why the authors choose the ratio 1:1 with OPC, neither the proportion of the 4 solid wastes shown in Table 2. Furthermore, the considered optimal proportion is reached at the maximum proportion of A, B and C tested. Meaning that optimal proportion was not reached.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. First of all, the ratio of 1 : 1 with OPC is selected because it is based on the standard, which has been added in the article ( Lines 92-96 ). Secondly, because BFS is the most active among these solid wastes, the activity of the composite powder increases with the increase of its content, which is also confirmed by the experimental results. However, its price is also the highest. In order to reduce costs and increase the amount of other solid waste, the amount of BFS is set to a range, that is, Table 2.
- Authors argue that they use WQMS as the main component according to the experimental experience. A specific reference is missed here.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. As you said, there is indeed a problem here, so we decided to delete this sentence.
- WQMS was chosen as main component of high active composite micronized powder. However, its proportion is lower than other components in F15 and F16. Furthermore, its proportion vary widely (from 62 to 27 %) along all samples, while it was described as the second material in terms of activity. Based on that, WQMS should have been tested as “E” factor in the experimental design, since its proportion could affect significantly to the final activity. Alternatively, the proportion of WQMS should have been fixed at a certain value in order to ensure it as main component, as well as to discard it as other factor to take into account.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I very much agree with your statement, the experimental design is not thoughtful enough, so we removed the ' WQMS as the main component of high activity composite powder '.
- Although the properties studied are well rationalized, any of them has been described before being tested. For example, What is activity index? Is it related with the other properties? Moreover, compressive strength results are shown in Table 4, but there is no discussion about that.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. The activity index is the percentage of ' test mortar ' to the compressive strength of ' control mortar '. The control mortar is pure cement mortar, and the test mortar is the mortar added with mineral admixtures according to the standard ratio. Therefore, the activity index is related to the compressive strength, and the analysis of the activity is equivalent to the analysis of the compressive strength.
- The text in lines 128-135 is not grammatically well redacted. I recommend to rewrite it. Moreover, some references are missed when the role of GS and DG in section 3.1.1. are discussed.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I have rewritten these words( Lines 134-141 ), and I have added reference to the discussion of GA and DG. ( References 16, 17)
- I suggest to move the section 3.1.2 “Effect of Factors on the Activity of Composite Micronized Powder” as section 3.1.3, since the Activity was chosen as main property to select the best sample to mix with OPC.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I agree with your suggestion very much. I have done so.
- It is mentioned in line 179 that WQMS provide as one of the main active materials of composite micronized powder. However, as I said in comment 5, WQMS is not discussed in the text.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. Yes, so we decided to remove the description ' WQMS as the main component of high activity composite powder '.
- It is not discussed in the text why 28 d activity index is worse than 7 d activity index.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. Because not all samples have a 7d activity index greater than the 28d activity index, a single sample discussion requires more work, which is not the focus of this study.
- The discussion in lines 238-243 is not clear. I recommend to rewrite it.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I 've rewritten it. ( Lines 191-196 )
- It is not explained how the discussed properties affects to the hydration characteristics of Cementitious Materials. It is only affected by the activity? If not, why “optimal” proportions towards activity index were chosen to be studied as hydration characteristics of Cementitious Materials? If yes, why the other properties were studied?
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. There is a certain correlation between the activity, hydration characteristics and chloride ion penetration resistance of the composite powder, but there is not much relationship between the fluidity and these three properties. The reason why the best ratio of activity is selected as the optimal ratio and other properties are tested is that these properties affect the application of composite micropowder, and activity is the most important and intuitive performance of composite micropowder. In addition, in this study, the fluidity and resistance to chloride ion permeability of all samples are within the scope of application, and we should find the ratio with the highest activity.
- Units of the axes in Figure 4 are presented with different format. Moreover, input image in Figure 4a is not described, as well as its axes are missed.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. We have modified the picture. In addition, input image in Fig.4 ( a ) provides details of the exothermic rate curve of hydration within 0-0.6 h. ( Lines 289-290, Fig. 6 )
- It is missed an initial conclusion paragraph which includes a general sum up.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I 've added the beginning of the conclusion. ( Lines 345-351 )
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, please address the following questions/concerns and include your reply into the context of the article. The article is interesting approach to address waste utilisation.
In the introduction I did not see sufficient literature addressing this combination of composite micronized powder or similar ones used for the same purpose.
What is the unit in table 1,
In table 4, I expect a comparison with a control such as common cement specimen.
The control needs to be used in all your analysis and discussions.
DG has high sulphur content, has this been investigated, how this will impact the product or the environment.
The optimum condition and combination of waste need to be reproduced and tested.
The product needs to be tested to see if it holds its performance over a long period of time.
Add some pictures for the Specimens.
Any mechanical tests have been done.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language is fine.
Author Response
Reviewer #4
- In the introduction I did not see sufficient literature addressing this combination of composite micronized powder or similar ones used for the same purpose.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. In the introduction I have rewritten and added literature addressing this combination of composite micronized powder or similar ones used for the same purpose.
- What is the unit in table 1,
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. the unit in table 1 is %, I 've added.
- In table 4, I expect a comparison with a control such as common cement specimen. The control needs to be used in all your analysis and discussions.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. In order to compare with ordinary cement specimens. I 've added it. ( Table 4, Control )
- DG has high sulphur content, has this been investigated, how this will impact the product or the environment.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. In this study, we have not yet tested this, but we have noticed this, so the four levels of DG in the orthogonal experimental design are relatively low. In addition, we will explore this issue in other studies.
- The optimum condition and combination of waste need to be reproduced and tested.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I have attached the results as shown in Table 7.
- The product needs to be tested to see if it holds its performance over a long period of time.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. This will be done in other studies in the future.
- Add some pictures for the Specimens.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. Since the experiment had been completed and no photographs had been left, it could not be provided.
- Any mechanical tests have been done.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. We only did compression tests.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Preparation and Performance of Ultra-Fine High Activity Composite Micronized Powder from Multi-Solid Waste” describes the effect of doping of various amounts of solid wastes on the fluidity, activity at different ages, and resistance to chloride ion penetration of the composite micropowder. The manuscript is well-prepared. I think it should be published in the Journal after minor amendments. Some questions/doubts are given below:
- In general: The authors should give the values of the errors for presented values (all Tables and Figures).
- Page 1, lines 43-44: The authors wrote: “At present, China is the largest manganese ore consuming country in the world (…)”. I think the authors should provide China’s percentage share in world consumption of manganese ore.
- Pages 3-4, lines 111-114 and 118-124: The descriptions of tables 3 and 4 are not perfect! They have to be corrected. Moreover, tables 3 and 4 are only cited in the text. There is a lack of a description of the results presented in the tables. The results presented have to be described and discussed!
- Figure captions for Figs. 5 and 6: There are no descriptions of figures (a) and (b) in the figure captions.
- The minor errors/misprints found: (i) page 2, lines 74-77: authors should provide temperatures for given densities; (ii) page 4, line 124: the authors wrote: “(…)cement mortar test block is shown in 5.”. What does it mean? (iii) page 7, line 182: there is a “glassy phase” and should be a “glassy state”.
Author Response
Reviewer #5
- In general: The authors should give the values of the errors for presented values (all Tables and Figures).
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. The fluidity, electric flux and mechanical strength data in this study were taken from the average of multiple data, and the data were concentrated. Because some of the original data is not saved, the error value cannot be provided, so now the error value is not added uniformly, I hope you can understand it.
- Page 1, lines 43-44: The authors wrote: “At present, China is the largest manganese ore consuming country in the world (…)”. I think the authors should provide China’s percentage share in world consumption of manganese ore.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. Now the introduction has been rewritten and the sentence has been deleted
- Pages 3-4, lines 111-114 and 118-124: The descriptions of tables 3 and 4 are not perfect! They have to be corrected. Moreover, tables 3 and 4 are only cited in the text. There is a lack of a description of the results presented in the tables. The results presented have to be described and discussed!
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. Because the results of Table 4 need to be analyzed and discussed in combination with Table 5 and the following pictures, there is no specific discussion here.
- Figure captions for Figs. 5 and 6: There are no descriptions of figures (a) and (b) in the figure captions.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. I have added the caption to the picture description. ( Figs. 7 and 8 )
- The minor errors/misprints found: (i) page 2, lines 74-77: authors should provide temperatures for given densities; (ii) page 4, line 124: the authors wrote: “(…)cement mortar test block is shown in 5.”. What does it mean? (iii) page 7, line 182: there is a “glassy phase” and should be a “glassy state”.
Response: Thank you for the comment and suggestions. (i) The density test temperature has been supplemented ( Lines 82-85 ). (ii) Missed ' Table ', the correct expression should be ' (…)cement mortar test block is shown in Table 5. ' ( Lines 126-129 ) (iii) Yes, I 've changed it( Line 229 ).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has undergone thorough revision and is now ready to proceed to the next stage of the publication process.
Author Response
Thank you for the comment .
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have done their best to answer most of the questions I asked and have modifying the manuscript accordingly. However, there are some questions related with the experimental design that were not answered. Specifically, questions 3 and 5.
On the one hand, the proportion of the 4 solid wastes shown in Table 2 is not explained, but more importantly, the optimal proportion considered is reached at the maximum proportion of A, B and C analyzed. As a consequence of the optimal proportion not being reached, further experiments are mandatory.
On the other hand, the proportion of WQMS vary widely along all samples, being described as the second material in terms of activity. There are two possible solutions of such a problem. Consider WQMS as "E" factor in the experimental design or keep the proportion of WQMS fixed. In any case, the experimental design must be redone.
Since these issues have not yet been resolved, I am afraid I must recommend that the manuscript be rejected again.
Author Response
On the one hand, the proportion of the 4 solid wastes shown in Table 2 is not explained, but more importantly, the optimal proportion considered is reached at the maximum proportion of A, B and C analyzed. As a consequence of the optimal proportion not being reached, further experiments are mandatory.
Response: Dear review experts, Thank you for pointing out this problem. The proportion of the 4 solid wastes shown in Table 2 is designed based on the previous work experience of the team. One of the main experimental experience is that BFS is the most active, and the activity of the composite micropowder must increase with the increase of its content. Therefore, in order to use other solid wastes, its content needs to design a reasonable ratio. The best ratio mentioned here is obtained under the condition of satisfying the proportion given in Table 2.
On the other hand, the proportion of WQMS vary widely along all samples, being described as the second material in terms of activity. There are two possible solutions of such a problem. Consider WQMS as "E" factor in the experimental design or keep the proportion of WQMS fixed. In any case, the experimental design must be redone.
Response: Thank you for pointing out this problem. This is because the total amount of BFS, MTS, DG and WQMS in the composite powder is 100 %. If these four solid wastes are used as factors in the orthogonal test design, the sum of the values of these four factors must not be 100 %, and the orthogonal test cannot be carried out. Therefore, there must be a solid waste content determined by the total amount and the amount of other solid wastes. In addition, due to time and other irresistible reasons, the experiment can not continue to re-conduct, hoping to understand.
