ThermalInsulation Dry Construction Mixture Based on Diatomite

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the opportunity to read "Thermal insulation dry construction mixture based on diatomite" manuscript submitted for publication to Coatings journal.

In the manuscript the authors summarizes their research work on dry building thermal insulation mixtures.

Here are my comments:

• the abstract should introduce the reader to the topic; as it now is too descriptive on the results and short in intro and discussion of the results.
• in authors affiliations there is a typo error - missing comma between city name and country name.
• introduction give references in bulk (ex.: "4-12", "13-17", "18-20", "22-24". Details on regard of the contribution to the knowledge and relevance to the topic must be produced for each of those references individually.
• "Previously conducted studies of natural diatomite using an electron microscope show the presence of quasi-two-dimensional lattices indicating the nanostructure of the ... " - lines 99-100 - reference to this statement is missing.
• Line 97: variable names should be in italic.
• The aim - lines 117-118 - should be formulated in the context of the scientific literature - survey please contribution of others to this specific topic and emphasize the novelty of your study.
• "Materials and Methods" is completely free of references like everything is hand-made and invented right now. Please proper use of references for your material and your methods.
• Results (of analysis) are to be in the section of results.
• Details on the preparation for, and of the methods of analysis, please.
• All measurement on scales with units must have the units explicitly given (ex. "(250±50)" in line 268).
• What is the role of eq.1 in the context? (no context given, no discussion given).
• Figure 2 - any average derived from experiments (presumably obtained from some values) should be accompanied by standard deviations and/or confidence intervals.
• Number of repetitions must be specified for Table 1.
• If literature was used, then the reference is missing. If not, the description of the associated procedure used in experimental determination should be provided.
• How exactly Table 2 contains kinetics? ("Kinetics of compressive strength gain for dry construction thermal insulation compositions"). Are just values of Compressive strength for different aged times in days ...
• What is the meaning of straight lines connecting the dots given in Fig.3? The process of strengthening is not a continuous one? It appears in hops?
• "Pa. s" in line 350 (below eq.2): language syntactic dot should not be confused with multiplication dot.
• Where are the experimental measurements marked in Fig. 4? It is a reason for which its style is different than of Fig. 3?
• Figure 5, Figure 6 : experimental data from repeated measurements must be provided with sample size and confidence interval.
• Fig. 7 - same comment as for Fig. 4.
• Idem for Tables 4, 5 and 6.
• Discussion must be based on literature survey. Your statements must be verified against others. Your results must be validated against others. As it is now is without any reference to the scientific literature whatsoever.
• Typo errors like spaces missing or in excess around units and numbers must be corrected (ex.: line 502, line 538, line 552, etc. - to refer only pages 15 and 16).
• Titles from the journal must be consulted.
• Papers published in the journal must be read - at least one - please notice the style used in providing the references when you open it and do the same.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:  The abstract should introduce the reader to the topic; as it now is too descriptive on the results and short in intro and discussion of the results.

Response 1: We have revised the abstract to provide a clearer introduction to the topic and included a brief discussion of the significance of the results, ensuring a more balanced and informative overview.

 

Comments 2: In authors affiliations there is a typo error – missing comma between city name and country name.

Response 2:Thank you for pointing this out. The typo in the authors' affiliations has been corrected by adding the missing comma between the city name and the country name.

 

Comments 3:  Introduction gives references in bulk (ex.: "4–12", "13–17", "18–20", "22–24"). Details on regard of the contribution to the knowledge and relevance to the topic must be produced for each of those references individually.

Response 3: Thank you for your observation. We have revised the introduction by providing individual explanations for each cited reference, clarifying their specific contributions and relevance to the research topic. Additionally, we have supplemented the introduction with new references to strengthen the theoretical background and context of the study.

 

Comments 4: "Previously conducted studies of natural diatomite using an electron microscope show the presence of quasi-two-dimensional lattices indicating the nanostructure of the ..." – lines 99–100 – reference to this statement is missing.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have addressed the issue by adding the missing reference to support the statement, specifically citing the study by Nurlybayev et al. (2024), which provides relevant data on the nanostructure of modified diatomite observed via electron microscopy.

 

Comments 5: Line 97: variable names should be in italic.

Response 5: Thank you for the remark. The formatting has been corrected — all variable names in line 97 have been italicized in accordance with the journal’s style guidelines.

 

Comments 6: The aim – lines 117–118 – should be formulated in the context of the scientific literature – survey please contribution of others to this specific topic and emphasize the novelty of your study.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the formulation of the aim in lines 117–118 by placing it within the context of the existing scientific literature, highlighting relevant contributions from previous studies and emphasizing the novelty and distinctive aspects of our research.

 

Comments 7: "Materials and Methods" is completely free of references like everything is hand-made and invented right now. Please proper use of references for your material and your methods.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have updated the "Materials and Methods" section by including references to relevant standards and normative documents that regulate the testing methods, thereby strengthening the scientific validity and reproducibility of the research.

 

Comments 8: Results (of analysis) are to be in the section of results.

Response 9: We have adjusted the structure of the manuscript by moving analytical interpretations that were previously placed outside the "Results" section into the appropriate part of the "Results" section to ensure logical consistency and clarity.

 

Comments 9: Details on the preparation for, and of the methods of analysis, please.

Response 9: Thank you for your remark. We have added detailed information to relevant normative documents that regulate the testing procedures, to ensure methodological clarity and compliance with established standards.

 

Comments 10: All measurement on scales with units must have the units explicitly given (ex. "(250±50)" in line 268).

Response 10: Thank you for your careful observation. We have reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all measurements include the appropriate units, including the correction of the value in line 268 to explicitly indicate the unit of measurement.

 

Comments 11: What is the role of eq.1 in the context? (no context given, no discussion given).

Response 11: Thank you for your comment. Equation 1 has been removed from the manuscript, as it lacked proper context and discussion within the text.

 

Comments 12: Figure 2 – any average derived from experiments (presumably obtained from some values) should be accompanied by standard deviations and/or confidence intervals.

Response 12: Thank you for the remark. We have updated Figure 2 by adding standard deviations to the experimental averages to provide a clearer representation of data variability and improve the statistical reliability of the results.

 

Comments 13: Number of repetitions must be specified for Table 1.

Response 13: Thank you for your comment. Table 1 presents data for 5 selected compositions that demonstrated the most representative results. Less effective compositions were excluded. For each composition, measurements were conducted three times to obtain average values, which are presented in the table.

 

Comments 14: If literature was used, then the reference is missing. If not, the description of the associated procedure used in experimental determination should be provided.

Response 14: Thank you for your observation. We have revised the manuscript by either adding the missing references where literature sources were used or, in cases where original procedures were applied, by providing detailed descriptions of the experimental methods used for clarity and reproducibility.

 

Comments 15: How exactly Table 2 contains kinetics? ("Kinetics of compressive strength gain for dry construction thermal insulation compositions"). Are just values of Compressive strength for different aged times in days ...

Response 15: Thank you for your comment. Table 2 presents the results of compressive strength tests of cube specimens at different curing ages. The observed changes in strength over time illustrate the kinetics of strength gain, which is why the table is titled accordingly.

 

Comments 16: What is the meaning of straight lines connecting the dots given in Fig. 3? The process of strengthening is not a continuous one? It appears in hops?

Response 16: Thank you for your comment. The strength gain process is continuous; however, the samples (cube specimens of 70.7×70.7×70.7 mm) were tested at specific curing ages—3, 7, 14, and 28 days. Therefore, the graph displays discrete data points connected by straight lines to visually represent the trend in strength development over time.

 

Comments 17: "Pa. s" in line 350 (below eq.2): language syntactic dot should not be confused with multiplication dot.

Response 17: Thank you for the remark. We have corrected the notation in line 350 by replacing the syntactic dot with the appropriate multiplication dot to accurately reflect the unit "Pa·s" for dynamic viscosity.

 

Comments 18: Where are the experimental measurements marked in Fig. 4? It is a reason for which its style is different than of Fig. 3?

Response 18: Thank you for your comment. Figure 3 presents the results of compressive strength tests of hardened cube specimens at curing ages of 3, 7, 14, and 28 days, obtained using a hydraulic press. In contrast, Figure 4 shows data on the plastic strength of freshly formed compositions, measured using a cone plastometer. The difference in the nature of the measurements explains the difference in presentation style between the two figures.

 

Comments 19: Figure 5, Figure 6: experimental data from repeated measurements must be provided with sample size and confidence interval.

Response 19: Thank you for your observation. Figures 5 and 6 have been revised to include experimental data with indication of the number of repeated measurements, as well as confidence intervals, to enhance the accuracy and statistical reliability of the presented results.

 

Comments 20: Fig. 7 – same comment as for Fig. 4.

Response 20: Thank you for your comment. Figure 7 presents data on shrinkage deformations of the developed compositions, which were measured using an IZA-2 optical comparator. This explains the stylistic difference from Figure 4, as the nature of the measurements and equipment used is different.

 

Comments 21: Idem for Tables 4, 5 and 6.

Response 21: Thank you for your comment. Table 4 presents data on the adhesive and cohesive strength of the developed compositions on two types of substrates—concrete and cement-sand—based on the testing procedure defined by Government Standard (GOST) 31356.

Table 5 provides the results of frost resistance tests for cube specimens of composition No. 5 after multiple freeze–thaw cycles (5, 10, 15, 25, 35, 50, and 75), conducted in accordance with GOST 31356.
Table 6 shows the results of frost resistance testing for the contact zone using composition No. 5, also carried out following the procedure specified in GOST 31356.

 

Comments 22: Discussion must be based on literature survey. Your statements must be verified against others. Your results must be validated against others. As it is now is without any reference to the scientific literature whatsoever.

Response 22: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the discussion section by incorporating references to relevant scientific literature that support and validate our findings. In particular, we added citations to recent studies on the use of diatomaceous earth, white Portland cement, and their effects on strength, microstructure, and frost resistance (references 34–36), to place our results in the broader context of current research and demonstrate the novelty and relevance of our work..

 

Comments 23: Typo errors like spaces missing or in excess around units and numbers must be corrected (ex.: line 502, line 538, line 552, etc. – to refer only pages 15 and 16).

Response 23: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected all typographical errors related to spacing around units and numbers, including those on lines 502, 538, and 552, to ensure consistency with formatting standards.

 

Comments 24: Titles from the journal must be consulted.

Response: Thank you for the remark. We have reviewed and adjusted the manuscript in accordance with the formatting and structural guidelines provided by the journal, including alignment with appropriate section titles and conventions.

 

Comments 25: Papers published in the journal must be read – at least one – please notice the style used in providing the references when you open it and do the same.

Response 25: Thank you for the recommendation. We have reviewed papers previously published in the journal and adjusted the formatting of our references accordingly to ensure consistency with the journal’s citation style.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Thermal insulation dry construction mixture based on diatomite

The manuscript explores the development of dry construction thermal insulation mixtures utilizing locally sourced modified diatomite and expanded perlite sand. The study contributes to sustainable construction material development by utilizing local raw materials to enhance energy efficiency. While the topic is relevant and timely, several important issues need to be addressed before publication.

1. The manuscript lacks a clear articulation of its novelty compared to existing studies on diatomite- and perlite-based thermal insulation mixes. The authors should emphasize what differentiates their work (e.g., formulation, performance metrics, cost efficiency).
2. The introduction is overly broad and repetitive. It should be refined to provide a sharper focus on gaps in current knowledge and the precise research question addressed by this study.
3. While the methods are detailed in parts (section 2.2), important information is missing (e.g., exact standards followed for all tests). Please include specific standard codes or guidelines used.
4. The manuscript does not address the potential limitations of the developed mixture (e.g., long-term durability, resistance to environmental degradation beyond freeze-thaw cycles).
5. The manuscript should undergo thorough proofreading and language editing since there are several typographical and formatting errors such as “(figure 5.)” , “(figure 2.)”, and “theirиwater”.
6. The authors may consider citing recent work on hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete (e.g., Experimental and numerical analysis of steel-polypropylene hybrid fibre reinforced concrete deep beams. Polymers, 15(10), 2340) as an example of combining materials to enhance crack resistance and mechanical performance, which could inspire further refinement of thermal insulation mixtures for improved durability.
7. Some figures lack adequate legends (e.g., Figure 1 and Figure 5).

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: The manuscript lacks a clear articulation of its novelty compared to existing studies on diatomite- and perlite-based thermal insulation mixes. The authors should emphasize what differentiates their work (e.g., formulation, performance metrics, cost efficiency).

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have clarified the novelty of our research by emphasizing the development of a dry thermal insulation mix based on thermally modified diatomite from the "Zhalpak" deposit in the Aktobe region. The study presents original findings on the physical, mechanical, and operational properties of the compositions. Notably, compressive strength increased nearly twofold, water retention improved by 16%, and frost resistance of both the cubes and the contact zone reached F35. Adhesion strength ranged from 0.25–0.36 MPa on concrete and 0.26–0.38 MPa on cement-sand substrates. All compositions demonstrated thermal conductivity coefficients within the insulation material range.

 

Comment 2: The introduction is overly broad and repetitive. It should be refined to provide a sharper focus on gaps in current knowledge and the precise research question addressed by this study.

Response 2: Thank you for the valuable feedback. We have revised the introduction to make it more concise and focused, eliminating repetition and clearly outlining the gaps in existing knowledge as well as the specific research question addressed in this study.

 

Comment 3: While the methods are detailed in parts (section 2.2), important information is missing (e.g., exact standards followed for all tests). Please include specific standard codes or guidelines used.

Response 3: Thank you for the comment. We have revised the methods section to include specific standard codes and guidelines used for all tests, ensuring clarity and adherence to recognized testing protocols.

 

Comment 4: The manuscript does not address the potential limitations of the developed mixture (e.g., long-term durability, resistance to environmental degradation beyond freeze-thaw cycles).

Response 4: Thank you for the insightful comment. We have updated the manuscript to include a discussion of the potential limitations of the developed mixture, including considerations regarding its long-term durability and resistance to environmental factors beyond freeze–thaw cycles, which will be the focus of future research.

 

Comment 5: The manuscript should undergo thorough proofreading and language editing since there are several typographical and formatting errors such as “(figure 5.)” , “(figure 2.)”, and “theirиwater”.

Response 5: Thank you for your observation. The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread, and all typographical and formatting errors—including issues like “(figure 5.)”, “(figure 2.)”, and “theirиwater”—have been corrected to ensure clarity and consistency in language usage.

 

Comment 6: The authors may consider citing recent work on hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete (e.g., Experimental and numerical analysis of steel-polypropylene hybrid fibre reinforced concrete deep beams. Polymers, 15(10), 2340) as an example of combining materials to enhance crack resistance and mechanical performance, which could inspire further refinement of thermal insulation mixtures for improved durability.

Response 6: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have included the recommended citation [33] and discussed the relevance of hybrid fiber-reinforced systems. The referenced study presents experimental and numerical analysis of the effects of combining steel and polypropylene fibers on the performance of reinforced concrete beams, demonstrating improvements in strength, ductility, and crack control. We acknowledge that hybrid polymer fibers hold potential for future application in dry mix formulations to enhance crack resistance and overall durability.

 

Comment 7: Some figures lack adequate legends (e.g., Figure 1 and Figure 5).

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the legends for Figure 1 and Figure 5 to provide more comprehensive explanations. In particular, for Figure 5, we included detailed data on water retention for each composition—with and without additives—demonstrating a clear trend: the use of special additives consistently increases water retention to meet or exceed standard requirements, regardless of the binder-to-filler ratio.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is clearly improved. However, the authors demonstrated resilience to actually consult the papers published in the journal, even I explicitly suggested that seeing how the reference list is written. Some references has been added, but once again, the journal style for references was disregarded. I encourage the authors to consult papers published in the journal in which they intend to publish their work and to follow the style in writing the references in the references list. Also I noticed that on other of my comments the authors put a lot of stress to explain to me why the things are different and too less or no effort at all to make additions and modifications to the manuscript to make it more accessible for a wider audience. I encourage them to revisit their comments and to see where is more appropriate to explain in the work than to me what it is and why.

I suggest acceptance after minor modifications.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. Your insights have been very helpful in improving the quality and clarity of our work.

We carefully reconsidered your remarks and revised the manuscript once again, taking your suggestions into full account. The following key changes have been made:

Comment 1 (round 2): The manuscript is clearly improved. However, the authors demonstrated resilience to actually consult the papers published in the journal, even I explicitly suggested that seeing how the reference list is written. Some references has been added, but once again, the journal style for references was disregarded. I encourage the authors to consult papers published in the journal in which they intend to publish their work and to follow the style in writing the references in the references list. Also I noticed that on other of my comments the authors put a lot of stress to explain to me why the things are different and too less or no effort at all to make additions and modifications to the manuscript to make it more accessible for a wider audience. I encourage them to revisit their comments and to see where is more appropriate to explain in the work than to me what it is and why.

I suggest acceptance after minor modifications.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. The References section has been completely revised to follow the style used in articles published in Coatings. We have also taken the remarks into account and made additional corrections in the manuscript text, including revisions related to some of the previous comments, in order to make the content more accessible to a wider audience.

 

1. Leal, R.V.P.; Sobrinho, R.A.L.; Souza, M.T. Recycling diatomaceous earth waste: Assessing its physicochemical features, recovery techniques, applications, viability and market opportunities. Cleaner Waste Syst. 2025, 10, 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2025.100244
2. Belova, T.K. Plastering solutions with improved performance properties based on modified dry building mixes. Eurasian Sci. Eurasian Sci. J. 2019, 11, 1–8.
3. Hassan, H.S.; Shi, C.; Hashem, F.S.; Israde-Alcantara, I.; Pfeiffer, H. Exploring diatomite as a novel natural resource for ecofriendly-sustainable hybrid cements. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 202, 107402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107402

 

Comment 6: The aim – lines 117–118 – should be formulated in the context of the scientific literature – survey please contribution of others to this specific topic and emphasize the novelty of your study.

Response 6:  We thank the reviewer for this valuable remark. In response, we have revised the aim of the study (lines 117–118) to place it more clearly in the context of existing scientific literature. We have included a brief overview of previous contributions related to the use of diatomite and perlite in thermal insulation dry mixes, highlighting current research trends and knowledge gaps.

Furthermore, we emphasized the novelty of our work, specifically the use of thermally modified local diatomite from the “Zhalpak” deposit and the combined effect of modified diatomite and perlite on the rheological and physical-mechanical properties of the mixtures. These changes are now reflected in the updated version of the manuscript, as described below:

«Therefore, the aim of the study is to develop formulations of dry construction thermal insulation mixtures using local raw fillers such as diatomite, perlite, and thermally modified diatomite from the "Zhalpak" deposit, as well as to investigate the effect of modified diatomite and perlite on the main rheological and physical-mechanical properties of the composites.»

 

 

Comment 14: How exactly Table 2 contains kinetics? ("Kinetics of compressive strength gain for dry construction thermal insulation compositions"). Are just values of Compressive strength for different aged times in days ...

Response 14: We thank the reviewer for this insightful question.

Table 2 presents the compressive strength values of the compositions at different curing ages (3, 7, 14, and 28 days). While these are discrete data points, they reflect the temporal development of compressive strength over time, which is the essence of strength gain kinetics.

By analyzing the relative strength increase at each time point (as detailed in the manuscript and in the explanation above), we observe the rate and progression of strength development for each composition. This allows us to characterize the kinetics of strength gain, especially when supported by Figure 3, which visualizes this trend.

Therefore, the term “kinetics” here refers to the temporal pattern of strength development observed across standardized time intervals, which is typical in the study of cementitious composites.

«Based on the obtained data on the strength gain kinetics of construction thermal insulation composites (Table 2, Fig. 3), it can be observed that the strength increase for the compositions was as follows: Composition No. 1 — 33.98% at day 3, 59.70% at day 7, and 89.80% at day 14; Composition No. 2 — 28.90% at day 3, 58.33% at day 7, and 83.33% at day 14; Composition No. 3 — 36.72% at day 3, 58.18% at day 7, and 88.36% at day 14; Composition No. 4 — 28.0% at day 3, 53.0% at day 7, and 78.0% at day 14; Composition No. 5 — 28.90% at day 3, 59.0% at day 7, and 82.05% at day 14. On average, the strength gain for all compositions was 31.3% at day 3, 57.6% at day 7, and 84% at day 14, reaching 100% strength by day 28. These results correspond to the typical strength gain kinetics observed in lime–cement composites.»

 

Comment 18: Figure 5, Figure 6: experimental data from repeated measurements must be provided with sample size and confidence interval.

Response 18: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In response, we have added information on the sample size and confidence intervals for the experimental data presented in Figures 5 and 6. These details are now included in the Discussion section of the manuscript to clarify the reliability and reproducibility of the results.

«The results of the compositions for water retention capacity showed the data that we expected, namely (figure 5), that without the use of special additives, regardless of the lime – diatomite ratio, they will be lower than the standard values, and in the presence of special additives, this value is normal, namely: the average in the presence of special additives is 97.84±0,053%, and without additives is 82.2±0,071%. The data in the figure 6 show that the coefficient of thermal conductivity of all com-positions belongs to the category of thermal insulation and this value for the developed compositions varies from 0.128±0,0064 to 0.152±0,0076 W/m^oC.»

 

 

We truly appreciate your time and effort and remain open to any further recommendations you may have.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the suggested modifications. Therefore, I accept it in the current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and Editors,

We would like to sincerely thank you and the reviewers for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We are especially grateful for the constructive feedback and valuable suggestions, which helped us improve the quality of our work.

We are pleased to know that the revised version has been accepted in its current form. It was a great experience working with your journal, and we truly appreciate the professional and supportive editorial process.

Thank you once again for your kind assistance.

Best regards, 

Dr. Yerlan. Y. Khamza 

On behalf of all co-authors