Synergistic Effect of Organic Silane and Water Glass Solution on Simultaneously Enhancing the Structural Strength and Water Resistance of Loess Blocks for the Water Conservancy Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work describes the properties of loess blocks composite materials modified by hydrophobic n-dodecyltri-methoxysilane and a water glass solution in oder to improve structural strength and hydrophobicity, for application in silt dams.

The manuscript is well written and well argumented. The methods and results are properly described.

The authors compare the intensity of the SiOSi vibration in the different samples. However, they do not mention how the spectra were acquired. It is likely that these were acquired by ATR, making a comparison of intensities tricky. Please comment on this and revise the comments accordingly

I would improve the quality of the figures. For instance Figure 8 a and b. the data could be shifted vertically and magnified vertically to improve clarity. In this form it is difficult to appreciate the peaks.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-The loess block samples must be consistently prepared with controlled moisture content (~12 wt%) and apparent density (1.7 g/cm³), as structural integrity is sensitive to compaction and water content.

-The chemical composition (via XRF), particle size distribution (via laser analysis), and mineralogical phases (via XRD) of the loess must be measured to ensure baseline comparability and material uniformity.

-The mass ratios of PS (potassium silicate solution) and WD10 (n-dodecyltrimethoxysilane) in each coating must be clearly defined and reproducible (e.g., PS-W10 to PS-W50).

-Coatings must be sprayed at a fixed mass (0.05 g/cm²) using a spray gun and cured under constant laboratory conditions (23 ± 3°C, RH ≈ 50%) for at least 3 days.

-Penetration depth of coatings should be experimentally verified using visual titration and cross-sectional wetting methods for each formulation.

-Water contact angle measurements must be conducted before and after abrasion and water immersion to quantify coating durability and hydrophobic retention.

-Frictional wear tests must include repeated cycles (up to 50), with weight loss and water contact angle retention tracked across cycles to evaluate the coating’s consolidation performance.

-Immersion tests in both distilled and mixed salt water (3% NaCl + 7% Na₂SO₄) for up to 30–60 days are essential. Observations must include visual degradation, weight gain, particle shedding, and water repellency.

-Freeze–thaw cycling (20°C to –20°C for 30 cycles) is mandatory, with surface integrity checks for cracking, delamination, or disintegration after exposure.

-The article must clarify the synergistic interaction between PS and WD10 (e.g., pore filling vs. hydrophobic barrier formation, -Si-O-Si- network formation) with reaction equations and visual illustrations.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Presented paper is well written and contains interesting results. Used methods are adequate. There are only few comments to it.

Abstract. Please, reduce this part. For example, first 10 lines are not necessary. Additionally, please add some numerical data: CA, wear, etc.

Fig. 2a. Please provide scale bars. Same for Figs. 10, 12.

Fig. 2b. Why SD is not presented for 0 h?

Please provide spray-coating parameters (velocity, distance, time, etc). As example please see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jma.2023.03.006.

Please describe what is “composite coating solution”?

Please provide viscosity of WD10.

Please balance all presented chemical reactions.

Fig. 6a. Values presented here are looks the same (excepting of WD10). Please provide SD.

The presented composition of particles (see page 9) is unclear. What is basis for this assumption?

Fig. 8a, b. Please indicate peaks/patterns for compounds and bonds. Additionally, please delete a.u. (there is no any numerical value).

Fig. 9. It would be better to change “friction” to “cycles”. Additionally, provide SD for Fig. 9b (same for Fig. 11a).

In the future, I recommend that authors use another point between days 15 and 30. This will clarify many details

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of the suggestions are corrected and added to the text. this article can be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded carefully to all comments. I believe the work can be accepted.