Laboratory Investigation of the Composite Influence of Rock Asphalt and Montmorillonite on the Performance of Bio-Asphalt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Laboratory investigation on the composite influence of rock-asphalt and montmorillonite on the performance of bio-asphalt" meets the thematic requirements of the journal Applied Sciences, and the results apply to the paving materials sector The authors have chosen appropriate tools to evaluate the discussed issue.

However, after reading the article, some main considerations were defined:

1. The structure of the manuscript is not correct,

2. The number of samples was not specified. The reliability of the test results cannot be assessed,

3. No statistical analysis of the research results,

4. The numbering of section 3 is incorrect

5. Section 3 Results. The results of the research should be analyzed, justified and compared with previous research. Otherwise, the manuscript resembles a simple report of what the authors observed in the laboratory and calculated

6. Section 4 The discussion consists of only two sentences. There is no discussion of the research results in this chapter.

The authors should correct the manuscript and send it back to the Editorial Office.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. Your suggestion is of great help to us. According to your suggestion. We have made detailed modifications to the structure and content of the paper based on your suggestions, and have made corresponding responses. We hope to get your affirmation. Thank you very much for your advice.

1. The structure of the manuscript is not correct.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Your suggestions are of great help to us. According to your suggestion, we have adjusted the structure of the manuscript. Hope to get your approval.

2. The number of samples was not specified. The reliability of the test results cannot be assessed.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Your suggestions are of great help to us. According to your suggestion, we have supplemented the relevant asphalt sample number in the corresponding position in the manuscript. At the same time, we pointed out in the manuscript that the reliability of test results is judged according to the requirements of the specification. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Please see lines 196-198 on page 7.

3. No statistical analysis of the research results.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Your comments will be very helpful for us to improve the paper. According to your suggestion, we have conducted a further analysis of the research results. Hope to get your approval.

Please see lines 270-489 on pages 9-18.

4. The numbering of section 3 is incorrect.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have corrected the chapter numbers in the manuscript. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Please see lines 270-489 on pages 9-18.

5. Section 3 Results. The results of the research should be analyzed, justified and compared with previous research. Otherwise, the manuscript resembles a simple report of what the authors observed in the laboratory and calculated.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Your comments will be very helpful for us to improve the paper. According to your suggestion, we have improved the content of Section 3 and conducted a further analysis of the research results. Hope to get your approval.

Please see lines 270-489 on pages 9-18.

6. Section 4 The discussion consists of only two sentences. There is no discussion of the research results in this chapter.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Your comments will be very helpful for us to improve the paper. According to your suggestion, we have moved the content of the Decision to the Conclusion and integrated it with the content of the conclusion section. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Please see lines 495-504 on page 19.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some modifications to it. These adjustments will not affect the content and framework of the paper. We marked the revised document in red. We sincerely thank the editors/reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the corrections can be approved.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Chaochao Liu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Index 4 is wrong with the first author.

2) All Figures (1-20) and Tables (1-8) and mathematical formulas and relations (1-7) should be immediately below the text in which they are listed and described.

3) In line 127, the term biodiesel should be used instead of diesel.

4) In chapter 2.1, it is necessary to describe the process of creating Buton rock asphalt.

5) Rock-asphalt and montmorillonite composite modified bio-asphalt should be added in chapter 2.1 under subheading (5) Preparation of RAMB.

6) In the first sentence under heading 2.2, matrix asphalt should be added in the enumeration as the sixth type of asphalt.

7) In the text under 2.2.1 and 2.2.3, the font should be harmonized with the rest of the text.

8) In the title of point 2.2.4, the abbreviation FTIR and its meaning should be added.

9) The numbering of points from 4.1.2 to 4.3 is wrong, it should be 3.1.2 to 3.3.

10) Tables 1-4 are missing the Standards according to which the tests were conducted.

11) Values that deviate from the prescribed values should be underlined in Table 7.

12) The text under Decision is short and should be moved to Conclusion.

13) It is certainly of great importance to carry out tests on bituminous mixtures and to confirm improvements in physical and mechanical properties.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and affirmation of my study. Your suggestions have important guiding significance for my paper writing and scientific research. According to your suggestion, we have revised the manuscript. Hope to get your approval.

1. Index 4 is wrong with the first author.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have modified the author information and corrected the index. Thank you very much for your suggestion.

Please see lines 4-10 on page 1.

2. All Figures (1-20) and Tables (1-8) and mathematical formulas and relations (1-7) should be immediately below the text in which they are listed and described.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have adjusted all the diagrams, tables, and formulas in the manuscript to be immediately below the text in which they are listed and described. Hope to get your approval.

Please see lines 115-489 on pages 3-18.

3. In line 127, the term biodiesel should be used instead of diesel.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have used the word 'biodiesel' instead of 'diesel'. Thank you very much for your comments.

Please see line 130 on page 4.

4. In chapter 2.1, it is necessary to describe the process of creating Buton rock asphalt.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. The solid particles of Buton rock asphalt used in this study were directly provided by the manufacturer. It is used in the laboratory after sieving through a 0.15 mm standard sieve. The production process of Buton rock asphalt cannot be provided in detail. Thank you very much for your suggestion. Hope to get your approval.

5. Rock-asphalt and montmorillonite composite modified bio-asphalt should be added in chapter 2.1 under subheading (5) Preparation of RAMB.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Your suggestions have greatly helped to improve our manuscript. According to your suggestion, we have placed the detailed process of preparing rock-asphalt and montmorillonite composite modified bio-asphalt in Section 2.2.

Please see lines 151-164 on page 5.

6. In the first sentence under heading 2.2, matrix asphalt should be added in the enumeration as the sixth type of asphalt.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have added the matrix asphalt to the list as the sixth type of asphalt. Thank you very much for your comments.

Please see lines 194-195 on page 7.

7. In the text under 2.2.1 and 2.2.3, the font should be harmonized with the rest of the text.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have corrected the text formatting under sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 to make the font harmonize with the rest of the text. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Please see lines 203-208 and 246-258 on pages 7-9.

8. In the title of point 2.2.4, the abbreviation FTIR and its meaning should be added.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we add the abbreviation FTIR and its meaning to the title of point 2.2.4. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Please see lines 259 on pages 9.

9. The numbering of points from 4.1.2 to 4.3 is wrong, it should be 3.1.2 to 3.3.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have corrected the chapter numbers in the manuscript. Correct the numbering of points to 3.1.2 to 3.3. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Please see lines 332-440on page 11-16.

10. Tables 1-4 are missing the Standards according to which the tests were conducted.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have added the standards for each test to Table 1. However, since the performance indicators of bio-oil, Buton rock asphalt, and montmorillonite are directly provided by the manufacturer, it is not possible to provide the standards on which the tests are conducted in Table 2-4. Thank you very much for your suggestions. Hope to get your approval.

Please see line 127 on page 3.

11. Values that deviate from the prescribed values should be underlined in Table 7.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have underlined the values deviating from the prescribed values in Table 7. Thank you very much for your suggestions. Hope to get your approval.

Please see line 185 on page 7.

12. The text under Decision is short and should be moved to Conclusion.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Your comments will be very helpful for us to improve the paper. According to your suggestion, we have moved the content of the Decision to the Conclusion and integrated it with the content of the conclusion section. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Please see line 495-504 on page 19.

13. It is certainly of great importance to carry out tests on bituminous mixtures and to confirm improvements in physical and mechanical properties.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Your comments will be very helpful for us to improve the paper. The research on the mechanical properties and road performance of RAMB asphalt mixture is indeed very important, and we will conduct tests based on your opinions in the next step. Thank you very much for your comments

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some modifications to it. These adjustments will not affect the content and framework of the paper. We marked the revised document in red. We sincerely thank the editors/reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the corrections can be approved.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Chaochao Liu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made amendments to the text that have increased the value of the article. In its current form article can be published.g

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition of my paper. Your suggestion has important guiding significance for my paper writing and scientific research.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Tables 2-4 are missing the Test method by which the tests were performed.

2. Title 2.1.5 should be Preparation of Rock-asphalt and montmorillonite composite modified bio-asphalt (RAMB).

3. Relations 4-7 should be aligned on the left margin.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and affirmation of my study. Your suggestions have important guiding significance for my paper writing and scientific research. According to your suggestion, we have revised the manuscript. Hope to get your approval.

1. Tables 2-4 are missing the Test method by which the tests were performed.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have added corresponding testing methods in Tables 2-4. Thank you very much for your suggestion.

Please see lines 133-149 on pages 4-5.

2. Title 2.1.5 should be Preparation of Rock-asphalt and montmorillonite composite modified bio-asphalt (RAMB).

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have modified the subtitle of 2.1.5. Hope to get your approval.

Please see lines 150-151 on page 5.

3. Relations 4-7 should be aligned on the left margin.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have adjusted the format of formulas 4-7. Thank you very much for your comments.

Please see line 371 on page 13 and line 436 on page 15.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some modifications to it. These adjustments will not affect the content and framework of the paper. We marked the revised document in red. We sincerely thank the editors/reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the corrections can be approved.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author: Chaochao Liu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx