Influence of Cellulose Ether on Properties of Premixed Mortar Based on Orthogonal Test Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the effect of cellulose ether (CE) and other admixtures on premixed mortar properties using an orthogonal experimental approach. The study aims to optimize mix design for balancing workability and strength in sustainable construction materials. The topic is relevant and methodologically structured, yet several weaknesses limit the scientific contribution and clarity of presentation.

The reviewer noticed the following notes:

1- Similar works on CE and premixed mortars using orthogonal design are widely reported. A detailed comparison with recent studies is required to define the research gap and highlight new insights.

2—The abstract is too long; it works as an introduction rather than an abstract. The author should revise the abstract and make it short and direct.

3- The choice of factor levels and ranges in the L16(4⁵) array  in line-136 must be supported by references or pre-tests. Without justification, the selected levels appear arbitrary.

4- The regression equations reported in the abstract and conclusions are not validated against experimental or residual data. A verification section or model performance test is required.

5- The conclusions merely summarize the findings without situating them within the context of prior research. Comparative discussion with existing literature is needed to justify the contribution and originality.

Author Response

Comments 1: Similar works on CE and premixed mortars using orthogonal design are widely reported. A detailed comparison with recent studies is required to define the research gap and highlight new insights.

Response 1: Dear professor, thank you for your suggestion; Corresponding modifications have been made in the preface; Based on a comparison with recent research, the study integrates the orthogonal experimental design with Response Surface Methodology (RSM), employing repetitive experiments and residual data analysis to validate the accuracy of the derived models. Thank you.

Comments 2: The abstract is too long; it works as an introduction rather than an abstract. The author should revise the abstract and make it short and direct.

Response 2: Dear Professor, the abstract has been revised to be concise and clear. Thank you.

Comments 3: The choice of factor levels and ranges in the L16(4⁵) array in line-136 must be supported by references or pre-tests. Without justification, the selected levels appear arbitrary.

Response 3: Dear Professor, the selection of factor levels and ranges has been reasonably explained in the 2.3. Experimental Design. Thank you.

Comments 4: The regression equations reported in the abstract and conclusions are not validated against experimental or residual data. A verification section or model performance test is required.

Response 4: Dear Professor, the regression equation has been supplemented with a normal probability plot of the residuals to verify the simulation accuracy. Thank you.

Comments 5: The conclusions merely summarize the findings without situating them within the context of prior research. Comparative discussion with existing literature is needed to justify the contribution and originality.

Response 5: Dear Professor, the conclusion section has been appropriately revised. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, titled “Influence of Cellulose Ether on Properties of Premixed Mortar Based on Orthogonal Test Method”, investigates the influence of cellulose ether (CE) content and its interaction with several supplementary materials (stone powder, manufactured sand, polyvinyl alcohol, and bentonite) on the properties of premixed mortar. The study employs an L16(4⁵) orthogonal array to analyse five factors at four levels, assessing consistency, water retention, and compressive strength.

The experimental program is well organised, and the statistical approach (orthogonal design and ANOVA) is correctly applied. The paper presents clear numerical data, regression models, and response surfaces that could be useful for optimising premixed mortar formulations.

The manuscript presents a comprehensive orthogonal test on the influence of cellulose ether and supplementary admixtures. However, similar factorial studies exist in the literature. The authors should clearly emphasise the novelty of their approach (e.g., specific multi-admixture interactions, regression model validation) and justify the selected factor levels with reference to practical applications or prior optimisation studies.

Figure 4: The figure lacks axis labels with measurement units, making it difficult to interpret the quantitative relationship between the experimental and predicted values. Please include the appropriate units on both axes to improve clarity and reproducibility.

Table 9,11: The formatting and numerical presentation should be improved. Some mean square values and F-thresholds are misaligned or incomplete, and decimals should include a leading zero (e.g., 0.191 instead of .191). The “Threshold” column is confusing and redundant; the table would be clearer if only F-values and p-levels were reported. A concise and uniform presentation with verified data and consistent p-value notation is recommended to improve clarity and reliability. Please revise accordingly for clarity and consistency. These corrections will improve clarity and readability.

The conclusions would benefit from a short discussion of how the optimized mix designs could be implemented in industrial premixed mortar production. Addressing potential benefits in terms of cost, sustainability, or large-scale performance would increase the practical impact of the research

The English is generally good, but requires editing for conciseness.

The paper has potential scientific value, but significant revisions are needed to enhance clarity, methodological transparency, and discussion depth before it can be considered for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript presents a comprehensive orthogonal test on the influence of cellulose ether and supplementary admixtures. However, similar factorial studies exist in the literature. The authors should clearly emphasise the novelty of their approach (e.g., specific multi-admixture interactions, regression model validation) and justify the selected factor levels with reference to practical applications or prior optimisation studies.

Response 1: Dear professor, thank you for your suggestion. I have made revisions in the introduction and experimental sections, thank you.

Comments 2: Figure 4: The figure lacks axis labels with measurement units, making it difficult to interpret the quantitative relationship between the experimental and predicted values. Please include the appropriate units on both axes to improve clarity and reproducibility.

Response 2: Dear professor, Figure 4 has been modified. Thank you.

Comments 3: Table 9,11: The formatting and numerical presentation should be improved. Some mean square values and F-thresholds are misaligned or incomplete, and decimals should include a leading zero (e.g., 0.191 instead of .191). The “Threshold” column is confusing and redundant; the table would be clearer if only F-values and p-levels were reported. A concise and uniform presentation with verified data and consistent p-value notation is recommended to improve clarity and reliability. Please revise accordingly for clarity and consistency. These corrections will improve clarity and readability.

Response 3: Dear professor, I have made revisions based on your suggestions. Thank you.

Comments 4: The conclusions would benefit from a short discussion of how the optimized mix designs could be implemented in industrial premixed mortar production. Addressing potential benefits in terms of cost, sustainability, or large-scale performance would increase the practical impact of the research.

Response 4: Dear professor, the conclusion has been revised. Thank you.

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Overall, my impression is favourable, but I would recommend a few minor improvements.

1. I believe that the abstract should be shorter. Please summarise the most important findings of the article.
2. It is accepted practice that keywords are written in alphabetical order.
3. I believe that the introduction to the article should be revised. It should include a review of the literature on previous research into cementitious additives. Reading the manuscript, I feel as if I am reading the materials and methods section. 
4. Table 3. Please explain what ‘finenes’ is and how it is determined using methylene blue. Please also describe the method for determining the ‘active index’. What is this index? Does it refer to hydration ability?
5. The description of the measuring devices is insufficient. Please provide additional information.

Results section

Overall, the experiment is well designed and described, and the results are presented clearly.
However, I have some comments on the term ‘water retention’. As I understand it, this term refers to the short- or long-term retention of free water in various types of reservoirs. These can be biotic and abiotic reservoirs (e.g. highly porous aggregates or cellular concrete). Furthermore, this is a reversible phenomenon. If water is chemically bound in the form of hydrates or retained in hydrogel networks, I believe that this process should be called ‘water bonding’ or ‘hydration’. Calling the hydration process ‘retention’ may be misleading for the reader.

Editing

Please check the layout of the article. Please correct the captions for the tables and figures, as well as the fonts used in the article. The literature review is fine.

Sincerely

Reviewer

 

Author Response

Comments 1: I believe that the abstract should be shorter. Please summarise the most important findings of the article.

Response 1: Dear Professor, the abstract has been revised to be concise and clear. Thank you.

 

Comments 2: It is accepted practice that keywords are written in alphabetical order.

Response 2: Dear Professor, the keywords have been arranged as requested. Thank you.

 

Comments 3: I believe that the introduction to the article should be revised. It should include a review of the literature on previous research into cementitious additives. Reading the manuscript, I feel as if I am reading the materials and methods section.

Response 3: Dear Professor, thank you for your advice. The introduction section has been revised accordingly. Thank you.

 

Comments 4: Table 3. Please explain what ‘finenes’ is and how it is determined using methylene blue. Please also describe the method for determining the ‘active index’. What is this index? Does it refer to hydration ability?

Response 4: Dear professor, thank you for your suggestion; Supplementary explanations have been provided at the corresponding positions in the text.Fineness refers to the particle size distribution of stone powder, typically expressed as a percentage of material passing through a sieve of a specific aperture. The determination of fineness is conducted through sieve analysis utilizing a standard sieve. The methylene blue value serves as an overall indicator to ascertain the presence of expansive clay minerals (such as clay powder) within the stone powder and to quantify their content. This is achieved by progressively adding methylene blue solution to a suspension created by mixing aggregates with water, observing for the emergence of a light blue halo indicating free methylene blue, which reflects the adsorption characteristics of the aggregate towards the dye solution. The activity index indicates the content of reactive components within the stone powder that can participate in the hydration reaction of cement, thereby influencing the performance of the pre-mixed mortar. The activity index is determined through chemical analysis.

 

Comments 5: The description of the measuring devices is insufficient. Please provide additional information.

Response 5: Dear professor, the content of the measuring equipment has been supplemented and modified in 2.2. Apparatus. Thank you for a million.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf