Improved Cementitious Tile Adhesives’ Workability and Mechanical Performance with the Use of Recycled Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1.In the introduction, discuss other articles on adhesive mortar with waste applications that demonstrate the feasibility of using this class of material. I suggest citing: 10.3390/en15124229 and 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.208.
2.At the end of the introduction, highlight the main objectives of the research. Also highlight what are the novelties of the research that justify its publication. Without this information clearly provided, the article is not attractive to new readers.
3.Number the tables in section 2. In this pattern, the article does not respect the MDPI publication rules.
4.It would be important to present the granulometry of the materials used in the research. This information has a major impact on the mechanical properties and workability of the material, but is not included in the manuscript. Please review this.
5.Compare the results obtained with other similar surveys. See section 3 part 1. The discussion in Figures 2 and 3 does not present any comparison with other similar surveys. There is no discussion of the results, only presentation of the information already observed in the Figures.
6.The level of the discussion presented is very low. There is no comparison of results, the information is only presented, not explained. Please compare the results obtained with similar surveys and discuss the results based on substantiated information.
7.Organize the conclusion into topics that bring together the main observations of the manuscript. Use 3 to 5 topics that conclude the investigation carried out.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
first of all I want to thank you for your willingness to review the article we are submitting.
We have paid attention to your and the other reviewers' revisions and changes were made to the article but due to the required space rules we were not able to make the changes you considered to be significant. i hope that this new version I am sending will be sufficient.
From the indication we had from the editor, minor changes could be made and that is how we proceeded.
Yours sincerely,
Ana Lourenço
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Improved mortar cementitious tile adhesive´s workability and
mechanical performance through the use of recycled materials
Manuscript Number:
In the present paper authors provide an experimental investigation on the physical and mechanical properties of different recycle waste in cementitious composite. However, the paper requires some minor improvement before it can be recommended for publication, it is proposed to re-submit a thoroughly revised version of the manuscript, considering the following comments.
1. Title and abstract are ok 2. Overall recommendation should be reported in one sentence at the end of the abstract 3. The authors should overview the recent progress made in the relevant area in the past two years or so. 4. Emphasizing the importance of research in introduction 5. It would be interesting if the author provide experimental photo of different prepared samples at different workability stages 6. please modify formatting of Equations 7. All figures needs to be improved and the clarity need to be enhanced in proper way 8. Particle gradation curves for the used material should be presented 9. The paper is well written and it is easy to follow, only the authors needs to go thoroughly revised version to correct the typo-mistake. 10. Author should highlight the assumptions and limitations and future research direction of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article showed a considerable improvement in quality. However, the references used are not from reliable sources. Use predominantly references to articles, MDPI journals or other publishers. Note that several congress and standards references are cited, making the level of discussion presented below the required standard. Please include references from trusted sources in your next round of review. Suggested article related to the topic: 10.3390/ceramics4030027 and DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.208.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Once again thank you for your opinion, it is very important for us to have a valid and relevant article.
Thank you for sending the two articles, we read them very carefully and it goes along with the study we tried to fit it the best way in the introduction.
Please find attached a new version.
With best regards,
Ana Lournço
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Outstanding study and well organized. I would suggest two details that should be taken into consideration by the authors:
1.- In the “Experimental methodology” section, the used equipment (Model, characteristics…) in the experiments should be detailed.
2.- In the “Results and discussion” section, experimental curves obtained from mechanical analysis should be provided additionally to the numerical provided data.
Once these questions are addressed, the article should be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
Extensive English editing is required
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion is an interesting paper, but you must improve the references about similar researchs and introduce them in the discussion.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article presents a proposal to evaluate the performance of mortars containing recycled materials. Although the topic is interesting for publication, authors need to answer the following points before the article is accepted for publication:
1. The title is too generic. Even in a first reading, the title suggests that the article is a broader bibliographic review, since it presents generic information. Therefore, I recommend that authors review the title of the manuscript, making it more specific to the research topic proposed in the manuscript. For example, the authors investigate “cementitious adhesives”. This should be clear in the title of the manuscript.
2. The abstract is another problem with the manuscript. I cannot understand what will be investigated in the manuscript just by reading the abstract. I suggest that the authors review the entire text of the abstract and follow the following structure: brief introduction of the topic, research methodology (highlight the type of article, if it is an experimental article or a literature review because this is not clear in the abstract), main results and conclusions. In addition, the abstract must make it clear what the objectives and justifications of the research are. I cannot understand what kind of recycled materials will be investigated: aggregates? Pozzolanic? Make this clear in your abstract.
3. In the introduction, it is possible to see that the abstract presents repeated excerpts from the introduction. For example: “Building construction presents an important economical ax for any country. However, it is also a relevant material consumer, with potential negative impacts on environmental sustainability.” This is unacceptable. The text of the abstract and the introduction must be different. Rewrite your abstract or introduction.
4. The quality of English is very poor. Please review the grammar of the entire manuscript. There are parts where understanding is not possible.
5. In the introduction, the authors highlight “Recent works have presented the stress distribution generated by thermal expansion in a ceramic bonding system”. Where are these recent studies? Please include examples of these recent studies in your introduction. Highlight works and authors that prove this statement.
6. Figure 1 is impossible to understand. Improve the quality of manuscript figures. In fact, all figures should have their quality improved. Figures 5-7 are very low quality and difficult to understand.
7. “When considering the 3 previous questions, a) relevant CO2 emissions values as Portland cement represents an important fraction of the tile adhesive formulation, b) technical performance including focus on additional properties as Young Modulus and, c) improvement of workability to make the daily use easier to applicators, a combined arrangement of raw materials was considered in order to provide improvements for the 3 conditions.” Why did you choose these 3 criteria? What about the adhesion properties? Are they not important in the material investigated in the research?
8. CO2 must be underwritten in every manuscript. Please fix this.
9. Include the tile adhesive mortar and blast furnace slag information in tables. The current format is not interesting. (lines 138-155)
10. The methodology is very confusing. I cannot understand the materials used and the methods evaluated. Please reorganize your methodology by first presenting all the information from the materials used in the research, presenting the main characteristics in the form of tables. Then present the information related to the methods.
11. Present in the methodology a table with the compositions evaluated and the substitutions made in the research.
12. In all experimental results (Figure 2, 3, 4) include the experimental deviations obtained in each property.
13. Compare the results obtained with similar surveys. Otherwise, the results obtained are difficult to understand and are not useful for publication.
14. From figures 5 and 6 there was an increase in deformability and a reduction in the modulus of elasticity. Why did this happen? How does the evaluated recycled material cause this effect? What justifies this behavior?
15. Organize your main findings into topics, in a succinct and organized way. In the current format the conclusions are very confusing. Better organize the information obtained using topics.
