Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Ghasan Fahim Huseien 1,*,
  • Ziyad Kubba 2 and
  • Jahangir Mirza 5
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Abdolmajid Alipour Reviewer 2: Wei-Hsing Huang Reviewer 3: İlhami Demir

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well-written and provides useful information about using ceramic wastes to enhance the impact resistance of geopolymer composites. The text is well explained and the experiments are well designed. I contend that it does not any further modification and can be accepted in the current format.

Author Response

Reviewer comments are highly appreciated.

Response to reviewer' comments as attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      Abstract is not well-written with some grammatical errors.

2.      Lines 135-136: the median particle sizes of GBFS and FA are incorrect. Not sure about that of TCWs.

3.      Table 1: The surface area of TCWs, GBFS, and FA needs be double-checked.

4.      Lines 161-162: This sentence does not make sense.

5.      Line 203: Not clear why there are 3 numbers placed in parenthesis. Are they different ratios of NS to NH?

6.      Line 234: eight ages?

7.      Lines 259-260: N1, N2 instead of N-1, N-2.

8.      Line 286: in the soil?

9.      Line 288: The particle size cannot be 35 m.

10.  Lines 290-291: No data were given for 56 and 90 days.

11.  Figure 6, 7, and 8: A bar chart (histogram) is more appropriate for presenting the strengths of the mixtures tested, because what is shown in the horizontal axis (mixture design) is discrete rather than continuous. Connecting the discrete data with a curve can be misleading.

12.  Line 309: what is WCP? Never defined.

13.  Lines 324-325: This sentence needs be revised.

14.  Lines 327-329: Use punctuation to help the reader.

15.  Line 331-332: I don’t see how this statement can be true.

16.  Section 3.1-3.4: Considering that geopolymer is alumino-silicate forming long range network, discussions on the mechanical strengths are expected to be dealing with the -Si-O-Al-O- or -Si-O-Si-O- compounds, instead of the amount of C-S-H or C-A-S-H gels.

17.  Line 371: spelling check.

18.  Lines 373-381: These discussions and Figure 10 do not seem to make any sense. No information on TCWs or FA is provided in Fig. 10. And the meaning of “interval difference” and the reason why the strength data should be normally distributed are not explained or discussed.

19.  Lines 392-414 and Fig. 11: The discussions in Section 3.5 (XRD analysis) are inconsistent and in some cases incorrect. The authors should start with telling the readers what the source of radiation was used. Indications of the minerals in Fig. 2 and Fig. 11 are inconsistent. C-S-H gel is basically amorphous and thus does not show “peaks”. And many others ……

20.  Section 3.6 on SEM images: Let me ask just 2 questions: (i) where can we find geopolymers in the images? (ii) all 4 images show presence of Ca(OH)2, but how come it does not appear in XRD?

Author Response

Reviewer' comments are highly appreciated.

Attached please find the authors response to reviewer' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The present study investigated the use of tile ceramic wastes in geopolymer mortars. In the study, the discussion part is sufficient, and the data obtained are compatible with each other. For the work to be accepted, the following corrections must be made.

 

·       The introduction should be shortened, and the study’s main purpose should be emphasized.

·       Attention should be paid to the use of abbreviations. For example, Line 125: abbreviated “tile ceramic wastes (TCWs)” is shown in the introduction but shown again.

·       The codes given on the “x-axis” in Fig.6, Fig.7 and Fig.8 are not fully understood. Instead of this coding, "GPMS1" etc. The given codes must be used. If a coding as “0:50:50” is to be made, Table 2 should give what these values are.

·       Line 290-291: “In addition, samples that included a significant quantity of WCP reached 81, 94, and 97 percent of their ultimate strength after 28, 56, and 90 days, respectively.” What is the WCP given in this sentence? In addition, the strengths at the end of 56 and 90 days are not given in the article, where are these values?

·       Line 303: “The decline in CS may be traced back to 303 several different causes.” What is the CS given in this sentence? It has not been abbreviated before.

·       Line 469: “impact resistance (IR)” The abbreviation of this word was given earlier. There is no need to repeat the long form here.

·       “5. Conclusions” Numbering of headings should be corrected. It will be 4 instead of 5.

 

·       “In the “Conclusions” section, a few suggestions should be made for future studies.

Author Response

Reviewer' comments are greatly appreciated. Attached please find the authors response to reviewer' comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Comment #2-3: The surface area of both FA and GBFS in Table 1 is much too low to be true.

2. Comment #2-14: Further revision is required. 

3. Comment #2-18: Author's response makes no sense. It is strongly recommended that Figure 10 and the corresponding discussions (lines 355-363) be removed such that they don't mislead the readers.

4. Line 407: Figure 13?  

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made the necessary changes. Therefore the manuscript can be accepted.