Study on the Performance Restoration of Aged Asphalt Binder with Vegetable Oil Rejuvenators: Colloidal Stability, Rheological Properties, and Solubility Parameter Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It isn't easy to understand the manuscript: binder (bitumen, asphalt) or asphalt concrete. Authors should distinguish between bitumen (asphalt) and asphalt coating/asphalt concrete. This applies to the entire manuscript, starting with the title.
2. The Abstract is similar to detailed conclusions regarding the research conducted. In a single paragraph, methods of introducing aging inhibitors into asphalt coating (performance restoration of aged asphalt coating/asphalt) and the paper's aims, scope, and main results (1 sentence), novelty should be clearly described in the Abstract.
3. The Introduction is too limited and needs significant changes. Provide a comprehensive literature review in your introduction, starting with general information (methods of combating aging of asphalt concrete/bitumen; substances used, including waste products, fossil fuels, etc.). The following sources may be helpful for discussion and debate: https://doi.org/10.23939/chcht18.02.284 https://doi.org/10.23939/chcht17.03.681 And only then do I recommend moving on to the main research topic of the manuscript (vegetable oil rejuvenators to reduce aged asphalt concrete).
4. Paragraph 3 of the Introduction needs explanations and numerical values: how aromatic substances get into the air and water (aromatic compounds are non-volatile and practically insoluble in water).
5. At the end of the Introduction, it is necessary to describe the research gaps and the work's purpose clearly. The gaps and the purpose of the research should be related.
6. It is necessary to use a wider range of indicators that characterize binders, including their resistance to aging (see e.g., https://doi.org/10.23939/chcht17.03.681).
7. Along with the quality indicators of the bitumen, it is necessary to indicate their compliance with the requirements of regulatory documents, including resistance to aging.
8. The caption to Fig. 1 needs clarification (explain a, b, c, d).
9. On the basis of what data (characteristics of substances) was the molecular simulation carried out? This requires explanation.
10. The sequence and method of mixing the original asphalt with vegetable oil, the ratio of components, and the sequence of asphalt analyses are unclear. A general block diagram of the research must be provided. Also, in Section 2, it is necessary to explain what N-asphalt, F-asphalt, etc., are.
11. Standard characteristics (penetration, softening temperature, properties after RTFOT) of bitumens (asphalts) without and with vegetable oil must be presented in Section 3
12. The novelty of the research should be clearly described in the Conclusions.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for the reply comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, titled “Study on the Performance Restoration of Aged Asphalt with Vegetable Oil Rejuvenators: Colloidal Stability, Rheological Properties, and Solubility Parameter Analysis”, presents a relevant topic in pavement engineering by investigating bio-based rejuvenators for recycled asphalt.

The study makes a meaningful contribution to the growing body of research on sustainable alternatives to petroleum-derived additives. While the overall structure is coherent and the methodological approach is comprehensive, the paper would benefit from enhanced clarity, greater scientific rigour, and improved use of formal academic language—particularly in the discussion of results and the interpretation of figures.

 

The following revision concerns only some minor points:

 

In Section 2.2.1, it is stated that 10 g of asphalt and 70 g of n-heptane were selected; however, the reason for this choice is not explained. If possible, it would be preferable to include a reference or justification.

The molecular simulation section is technically well-executed; however, its connection to the experimental findings remains underdeveloped.

In Table 4, it would be useful to specify the unit of measurement for molecular weight.

The numbering of the figures is incorrect from figure 13 onwards. Please correct the numbering of the figures and their references in the text.

The description of rejuvenator preparation is detailed, but the rationale for selected dosages should be better justified. Why these specific percentages (2%, 4%, 6%, etc.)?

Some grammatical and stylistic errors are present, including overly long sentences and occasional punctuation issues.

 

This article has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the existing literature on sustainable asphalt technologies. However, further revisions are needed to improve its scientific rigor, methodological clarity, and linguistic quality before it can be considered for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammatical and stylistic errors are present, including overly long sentences and occasional punctuation issues.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment for the reply comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
Note: Using capital letters in article and section titles must comply with formatting requirements.