Carbonation Resistance of Surface Protective Materials Modified with Hybrid NanoSiO2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting, since it presents two different coatings to avoid carbonation in cementitious materials. I think it is necessary to specify some sections to improve the paper since when they are read they can lead to confusion. The questions would be:
What type of slag did you use? Blast furnace or electric furnace slag. There are several classes
What dosage have you used? 15% of FA and Slag based on the fact that it has made the dosage for each part of cement, add a part of these materials, or on the contrary add with which the water-cement ratio would not be correct.
On the basis of which regulations I carry out the carbonation test, I should put it.
When I made the measurement, did they do it on the surface or at a certain distance from the specimen? It would be interesting to see if it has penetrated or the coating has prevented the CO2 from penetrating internally
You should reference the dosages since each one corresponds in table 4, although it has been explained in lines 113-115 it is not clear what each one corresponds
What is of 0wt% HNS? If it is 0, has nothing been put on the surface?
You should refer to more studies and see if the influence of waste additions in different proportions can really change it, for example: Slag Substitution as a Cementing Material in Concrete: Mechanical,; Physical and Environmental Properties; Mechanical-strength characteristics of concrete made with stainless steel industry wastes as binders
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is interesting which demonstrates the carbonation in cement-based materials (SPMs), which is not typically considered in the discussion of mitigation methods for CO2 emissions from the cement industry. As such, this work will be mostly of relevance to those interested in carbon dioxides mitigation in building materials or in the industrial sector (for which, production of is a notable contributor to CO2 emissions). This is an extremely important step forward in assessing the role of the cement sector in greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios. I recommend acceptance of this manuscript after the following comments are addressed.
For the Methods, it would help immensely to have more specific references to individual sections in section 2 where the reader can find the quantitative details; as written, the methods are very vague and the details are buried in the manuscript. The abstract could be punchier, perhaps by adding some more quantitative takeaways.
No clear explanation what is the role of SiO2 in this material?
Figure 4b needs a more thorough explanation. why are the patterns between the regions so extremely different
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript “Carbonation Resistance of Surface Protective Materials Modi- 2 fied with Hybrid NanoSiO2” studied novel surface protective materials (SPMs) modified with hybrid nanoSiO2, fly ash and slag to reduce CO2 emissions and extend the service life of the reinforcement concrete. English is not bad and generally is easy to follow, but there are some evident grammar mistakes. The authors presented modest introduction literature overview, too. The subject and the methodology applied seem to be justified and deserve publication but after major revisions. The text was prepared enough carefully but in my opinion in a lot place must was improved. I have a few questions of the presented process, too. Below the suggested my corrections and my questions was presented. To conclude, I suggest this manuscript to be published in the journal “Coatings” after the below major revisions:
- The abstract comprises many introductory data. They should be removed.
- Please read through the paper again, to correct mistakes, e.g.:
- Convert CO2 to CO2
- Line 36: Convert Ca2+ to Ca2+.
- Line 57: Convert NanoSiO2 to NanoSiO2.
- It would be convenient to include a table of abbreviations.
- What is the percentage of slag and fly ash?
- Please provide the manufacturers for all the equipment used.
- The XRD measurement is described in detail. On the other hand you did not even mention the method used for determining setting.
- I think is in article the Authors presented only investigations, but what about technology?
- The final question concerns for the economically aspects the process?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper (Carbonation Resistance of Surface Protective Materials Modified with Hybrid NanoSiO2) presents interesting results but needs a thorough revision before being considered for publication. Some sections need to be completely rewritten, like the Introduction, literature review and Discussion.
Introduction: The theoretical, analytical and standard approaches should be discussed.
The novelties have to be outlined. It has to be completely rewritten so that the focus of the work and its innovative content can be really appreciated.
Literature review: The Literature review is now a mere list of information but the authors have to provide their own "unifrying" view and not only citing previous work.
In addition, in a quick search I found a number of papers on this topic that you did not cite. I am listing them here, please consider them in the literature review and in the interpretation of the results:
- Hydration mechanisms and durability of hybrid alkaline cements (HACs): A review, Construction and Building Materials, 1 October 2020..., Lili XueZuhua ZhangHao Wang
- Design of SiO2/PMHS hybrid nanocomposite for surface treatment of cement-based materials, Cement and Concrete Composites, 16 December 2017..., Ran Li, Pengkun Hou, Surendra P. Shah
- Exploring the potential of siloxane surface modified nano-SiO2 to improve the Portland cement pastes hydration properties, Construction and Building Materials, 15 March 2014..., Giovana Collodetti, Philippe J. P. Gleize, Paulo J. M. Monteiro
- …
Results and discussion: The paper presents a big amount of results from unusual experiments but without a theoretical and practical approach.
Conclusions: The discussion about technological benefit have to be separated in the article according points of conclusions. The analysis of the results is quite basic and deserves better and deeper processing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors carefully followed the comments and suggestions, made appropriate corrections and the manuscript in the present form was sufficiently improved with respect to the previous version. I recommend to accept this manuscript for publication.
