Water-Glass-Assisted Foaming in Foamed Glass Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, an interesting piece of work on the use of water glass as a foaming agent to produce foamed glass. However, there are a few areas that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for acceptance.  Firstly, it appears that the authors have not included control samples (i.e. without WG) for comparison. I think this is important for a proper evaluation of the contribution of WG to foaming, especially given that so many different additives were used in the production. Secondly, the authors have referred to the oxidation of carbon a few times but it is not clear to me if they are referring to the carbon black included, which constituted only 0.5 wt.%. Additionally, there is also a lack of discussion on how the foamed glass produced compares with other commercial insulation products. It would be good to discuss this to provide readers with a better understanding of the potential advantages and limitations of the foamed glass used for insulation purposes. Please see attached annotated document for detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The manuscript will benefit from language editing. A lot of typos and confusing sentences at the moment. 

Author Response

Please see the attachmenet. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Article: Water glass assisted foaming in foamed glass production

Comments:
            The authors have well explored the study on Water glass assisted foaming in foamed glass production stability. They have investigated the use of water glass in the foaming of waste bottle glass with carbon‒manganese oxide foaming couple in Ar and air atmosphere. The results show that with increased addition of WG the crystallinity and the thermal conductivity decrease in comparison to the samples without WG addition. However, there are some minor points to be noticed by the authors, may be needed to revise them.

1. Abstract: Good
2. Introduction: No references have been cited to the paragraph 1, good idea to cite suitable references.
3. Experimental: Experimental heading should be separated from the Introduction.

n  In line 76, it should be “agate mortar” instead of “agnate mortar”

4. Results: OK.
5. Conclusions: OK

• Besides, there are some typos, needed further proof read.
• Please see the attachment for more.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx