Advances in Applications of Cereal Crop Residues in Green Concrete Technology for Environmental Sustainability: A Review
, Kunwar Paritosh 1, Nidhi Pareek 3, Andrey A. Kovalev 4,*, Dmitriy A. Kovalev 4, Yuri V. Litti 5, Vladimir Panchenko 6, Vadim Bolshev 4 and Vivekanand Vivekanand 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. This manuscript does not have an adequate reference.
2. Please also review other crop residues such as oat husk, sorghum husk, millet husk and triticale husk for the potential application as green concrete
Author Response
Reviewer #1
This manuscript does not have an adequate reference.
Authors thank reviewer for this observation and have added more references citing the different biomass as suggested by the reviewer below too.
- Please also review other crop residues such as oat husk, sorghum husk, millet husk and triticale husk for the potential application as green concrete
Authors thank reviewer for the suggestion and other crop residues have been added in revised MS under review mode.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors had taken necessary action to enhance the quality of the manuscript. All the comments given were taken into consideration and revisions had been made accordingly
Author Response
Reviewer #2
The authors had taken necessary action to enhance the quality of the manuscript. All the comments given were taken into consideration and revisions had been made accordingly
Authors would like to thank reviewer for recommendation the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This Paper may require English grammar check, typo-errors and rewriting few sentences; based on this, further modifications has to be done. Few examples are highlighted in the paper. Based on this, author has to completely recheck the paper.
After incorporating all, this paper can be accepted for publications.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #3
This Paper may require English grammar check, typo-errors and rewriting few sentences; based on this, further modifications have to be done. Few examples are highlighted in the paper. Based on this, author has to completely recheck the paper.
Authors would like to thank reviewer for recommendation the manuscript and a through revision have been performed.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find my comments below. Thank you
1. Please include the effect on revenue or potential industries on using green concrete made from agricultural waste.
2. Add references at line 39, 44, 45, 51.
3. Avoid using etc in line 41, line 44, and the entire manuscript.
4. Please explore the full uses of (a) sawdust, (b) giant reed ash, (c) cork, (d) tobacco waste, (e) sugarcane bagasse ash, (f) groundnut shells, (g) oyster shells, (h) groundnut shells, and (I) sawdust for green concrete.
Author Response
- Please include the effect on revenue or potential industries on using green concrete made from agricultural waste.
There will be huge jump in revenue generation in coming future in this particular area as very large number of research (Pls refer references below for kind information) is ongoing in this sector and soon there will be many competitors who will be launching the new start-ups looking at the golden future and climate change. As there will be use of green concrete the emission of the RCC (during production) will be minimised which is also a saving in indirect form.
Luhar, S., Cheng, T.W. and Luhar, I., 2019. Incorporation of natural waste from agricultural and aquacultural farming as supplementary materials with green concrete: A review. Composites Part B: Engineering, 175, p.107076.
He, J., Kawasaki, S. and Achal, V., 2020. The utilization of agricultural waste as agro-cement in concrete: A review. Sustainability, 12(17), p.6971.
Chinnu, S.N., Minnu, S.N., Bahurudeen, A. and Senthilkumar, R., 2021. Recycling of industrial and agricultural wastes as alternative coarse aggregates: A step towards cleaner production of concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 287, p.123056.
- Add references at line 39, 44, 45, 51.
It has added as suggested.
- Avoid using etc in line 41, line 44, and the entire manuscript.
It has been deleted as suggested.
- Please explore the full uses of (a) sawdust, (b) giant reed ash, (c) cork, (d) tobacco waste, (e) sugarcane bagasse ash, (f) groundnut shells, (g) oyster shells, (h) groundnut shells, and (I) sawdust for green concrete.
Authors thanks reviewer for the suggestion and it will be explored in other MS where we may focus on such wastes. In the current MS the main focus is on the agricultural wastes which are coming in large amount and that is of cereal crops residues as main source.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reviews and highlights the possible application of waste residues from cereal farming in concrete as an alternate resource to the cement, fine aggregate and fiber reinforcement. The topic is interesting and appealing, anyhow the review of the related past studies was inadequate. Besides, the flow of the review This manuscript has limited contribution to the body of knowledge and is definitely not up to the standard of a comprehensive review paper. Hence, I would reckon the paper undertakes major revision before reevaluation. My comments are as follows:
1. The abstract must be rewritten. Little information is provided on motivation and problem statements.
2. Additionally, the authors should explain its contribution to the research field
3. The Introduction section needs to be fundamentally reworked. Very little relevant information is provided on the current state of affairs. Focus strongly on recent articles that are readily available. Authors may give emphasis to different viewpoints and conditionalities to validity in their review. This would provide an instructive presentation of review.
4. The major problem is the flow and presentation of results etc. The authors were unable to properly divide each section accordingly. For instance, they mix the manufacturing of concrete aspect with the properties of concrete
5. Everything needs to be rearranged wisely. For instance, firstly review on the constituent materials and preparation methods, then the typical properties i.e fresh properties, mechanical properties, durability properties, thermal properties etc, next the application aspects.
6. Most of the tables were poorly presented (for instance table 1, table 5 etc)
7. Line 234 - Effect of partial replacement of WSA with cement : the results were poorly presented (in bullet form).
8. The discussions of previously published works presented are mainly focused on the primary data derived from the study. For a more comprehensive deliberation on the test results obtained from previous studies, the authors are advised to discuss the possible reasoning for the observed trends with suitable facts or concepts prescribed in the relevant literature as well.
9. Any differences in findings from various studies should be explained using the different peculiarities between one study and another. If this consideration is carefully made and implemented, the authors may likely find evidence-based explanations
10. Include charts or figures to depict key points of the review. A useful tool employed in many reviews is a timeline that details significant discoveries that have contributed to a better understanding of the field. This is lack in the manuscript
11. The authors should mention the limitation in the review as well. An assessment of whether the review was adequate to reach a conclusion that can be applied to a much larger group, stating reasons
12. Conclusion - this section should discuss the objective discussed in the introduction. Additionally, they should consider the implications of the findings, interpretations, and identify unresolved questions
13. It is crucial to know about the primary studies and also know the latest discoveries (i.e., be scholarly). A good review encapsulates relevant breakthroughs, discusses implications, and speculates on the future of the field. Hence the authors should be aware of this as well.
14. Need to consider more published papers related to waste residues from cereal farming in concrete as an alternate resource to the cement, fine aggregate, and fiber reinforcement.
Author Response
- The abstract must be rewritten. Little information is provided on motivation and problem statements.
It has been reworded accordingly.
- Additionally, the authors should explain its contribution to the research field.
It has been reworded accordingly.
- The Introduction section needs to be fundamentally reworked. Very little relevant information is provided on the current state of affairs. Focus strongly on recent articles that are readily available. Authors may give emphasis to different viewpoints and conditionalities to validity in their review. This would provide an instructive presentation of review.
It has been reworded accordingly. The section has been modified and the concerns raised by the reviewer were well taken, which has improved the quality of revised MS.
- The major problem is the flow and presentation of results etc. The authors were unable to properly divide each section accordingly. For instance, they mix the manufacturing of concrete aspect with the properties of concrete
It has been modified accordingly.
- Everything needs to be rearranged wisely. For instance, firstly review on the constituent materials and preparation methods, then the typical properties i.e fresh properties, mechanical properties, durability properties, thermal properties etc, next the application aspects.
It has been reworded accordingly.
- Most of the tables were poorly presented (for instance table 1, table 5 etc)
It has been modified accordingly.
- Line 234 - Effect of partial replacement of WSA with cement : the results were poorly presented (in bullet form).
It has been modified accordingly.
- The discussions of previously published works presented are mainly focused on the primary data derived from the study. For a more comprehensive deliberation on the test results obtained from previous studies, the authors are advised to discuss the possible reasoning for the observed trends with suitable facts or concepts prescribed in the relevant literature as well.
It has been corrected accordingly.
- Any differences in findings from various studies should be explained using the different peculiarities between one study and another. If this consideration is carefully made and implemented, the authors may likely find evidence-based explanations.
This is already mentioned at many places in the MS.
- Include charts or figures to depict key points of the review. A useful tool employed in many reviews is a timeline that details significant discoveries that have contributed to a better understanding of the field. This is lack in the manuscript.
This is mentioned in the revised MS.
- The authors should mention the limitation in the review as well. An assessment of whether the review was adequate to reach a conclusion that can be applied to a much larger group, stating reasons.
This is mentioned in the revised MS.
- Conclusion - this section should discuss the objective discussed in the introduction. Additionally, they should consider the implications of the findings, interpretations, and identify unresolved questions
This is modified accordingly.
- It is crucial to know about the primary studies and also know the latest discoveries (i.e., be scholarly). A good review encapsulates relevant breakthroughs, discusses implications, and speculates on the future of the field. Hence the authors should be aware of this as well.
Latest references have been added accordingly.
- Need to consider more published papers related to waste residues from cereal farming in concrete as an alternate resource to the cement, fine aggregate, and fiber reinforcement.
Latest references have been added accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript write up is below standard.
1. Check review papers listed below and similar papers and use them as a guide to improve your paper.
Shafigh P, Mahmud HB, Jumaat MZ, Zargar M. Agricultural wastes as aggregate in concrete mixtures – A review. Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 110–117
Aprianti E, Shafigh P, Bahri S, Farahani JN. Supplementary cementitious materials origin from agricultural wastes – A review. Construction and Building Materials 74 (2015) 176–187
2. Highlight research gaps found in your review in the conclusion section of your paper.
Author Response
- Check review papers listed below and similar papers and use them as a guide to improve your paper.
Shafigh P, Mahmud HB, Jumaat MZ, Zargar M. Agricultural wastes as aggregate in concrete mixtures – A review. Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 110–117
Aprianti E, Shafigh P, Bahri S, Farahani JN. Supplementary cementitious materials origin from agricultural wastes – A review. Construction and Building Materials 74 (2015) 176–187
It has added as suggested.
- Highlight research gaps found in your review in the conclusion section of your paper.
It has reworded as suggested.
