An Overview of Methods to Enhance the Environmental Performance of Cement-Based Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper shows an interesting review of the methods to enhance the environmental performance of cement-based materials. This paper can be considered after a major revision. The following comments must be addressed in the revised version.

(1) Only one figure is given in this paper. It is not acceptable for a review paper. More tables and figures should be added in the revised manuscript.

(2) The use of construction waste and recycled cement as building materials is an important approach to enhancing the environmental performance of cement-based materials. The author should give more introduction on this issue. The following references can be referred. (a) Reusing waste clay brick powder for low-carbon cement concrete and alkali-activated concrete: A critical review (b) Characterization of sustainable mortar containing high-quality recycled manufactured sand crushed from recycled coarse aggregate. There reference give a detailed introduction on the sustainability and environmental benefits of cement-based materials

(3) Overall, this review at the current form more likes a chapter from the book, lacking a detailed analysis and discussions on the findings from various literatures, which is important for a reviewer paper. “One people did one this” is not recommended for a review paper.

(4) The conclusion can be listed one by one, and 4-6 points were suggested.

 

The reviewer looks forwards to the revised version from the authors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer suggests a rejection, with details comments as follows. 

 

1. Lack of Originality: The article primarily discusses well-known issues of urbanization, demographic growth, and the environmental impact of the construction industry. While the topic is relevant, the paper fails to provide novel insights or perspectives on the subject. The proposed strategies for producing green cement and concrete using Construction and Demolition Waste (CdW) are also broadly discussed in the literature.
2. Insufficient Depth: The review lacks sufficient depth in analyzing the strategies for producing green cement and concrete. The paper briefly mentions reuse techniques and EU policies but does not provide a comprehensive evaluation of their effectiveness, challenges, or limitations.
3. Lack of Empirical Evidence: The paper relies heavily on theoretical discussions and lacks empirical evidence to support the proposed strategies. The incorporation of case studies, data analysis, or experimental results would strengthen the arguments and conclusions.
4. Organization and Structure: The article is structured more like a general overview rather than a focused review. The introduction is broad, and the subsequent sections do not build a logical progression of ideas. The paper lacks a clear research question or hypothesis that guides the analysis.
5. Language and Clarity: The language used in the paper is generally understandable but contains some grammatical errors and unclear sentences. This reduces the clarity of the paper and makes it difficult to follow the author's arguments.

In summary, while the topic of producing green cement and concrete using CdW is important, this paper fails to provide sufficient novelty, depth, empirical evidence, or clarity to merit publication. The authors are encouraged to revise the paper by:

• Narrowing the focus and identifying a specific research question or hypothesis.
• Providing a more comprehensive evaluation of the strategies, including their effectiveness, challenges, and limitations.
• Incorporating empirical evidence, such as case studies or experimental results, to support the arguments.
• Improving the organization and structure of the paper to build a logical progression of ideas.
• Refining the language and correcting any grammatical errors to improve clarity.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all my comments, and this paper can be published as it is.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the revised version has made progress compared to the original version.