Optimizing Building Thermal Insulation: The Impact of Brick Geometry and Thermal Coefficient on Energy Efficiency and Comfort
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The author has answered my question
Author Response
Thank you for acknowledging that the authors have addressed your previous comments. We appreciate your feedback and engagement with the paper. If there are any further questions or concerns you would like us to address, please don't hesitate to let us know
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The article is too long. It is too extensive in describing the methodology in terms of preparation, extrusion, drying, firing of samples.
Figures 1 and 2 are very poor quality. They should be changed for the better, preferably in 3d.
Reference should be made to the CaO content of the TPZ clay and the high CaO content of the paper waste (almost 35%). Did the CaO content not affect the mechanical strength of the bricks?
It should be noted that the main objective of the study was to determine the effect of the addition of paper waste on the insulating properties of the bricks produced. However, it should be mentioned whether the addition of waste to the ceramic mass does not significantly reduce the mechanical strength of the bricks obtained. The article should be supplemented with this information. After all, what if a brick has good insulating properties but fails to meet the requirements of the standard in terms of mechanical strength.
Detailed remarks
Table 5 gives thermal conductivity TPS - but it is not clear which sample you are referring to TPS2 or TPS8? I guess the thermal conductivity was not the same in both samples? In computer modelling this should be taken into account. Especially as the results in Table 8 indicate different thermal conductivity of the ceramic material obtained from sample TPS2 and TPS8.
Line 432 is - Two different mixtures were prepared, one with 100% clay material and 432
another with 92% clay material and 8% solid waste material.
Ought to be:
Three different samples were prepared, one .........................
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
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
1. Are there experiments or references for comparison
2. Add a nomenclature section to the manuscript
3. The number of the references should be increased
4. The novelty of the article is not coming out very clearly in the introduction. Please elaborate the novel aspect of your study in the end of introduction section.
5. Uncertainty of the data should be calculated and shown in plots
6. Can the author provide reference formulas for relevant literature for comparison?
7. Can Brick have specific conclusions on the impact of Brick on the overall room?
A moderate revision of the English syntax of the article is required
Reviewer 2 Report
The issue of using various wastes as components of ceramic mass in the production of building materials has been widely reported in the scientific literature for years. The authors used paper sludge with a high content of cellulose fibers for their study, which resulted in a significant carbon element content in the sludge (22%). Coal in the process of firing bricks at temperatures from more than 100 degrees Celsius was burned (which increased the temperature in the kiln), and in addition, the gases produced from combustion should increase the porosity of the obtained bricks. Additional porosity can affect both the specific gravity of the resulting bricks and their thermal conductivity as well as compressive strength. It is a pity that they only analyze the impact of the additive in one proportion, i.e. 92% clay and 8% waste. It would be good to prepare three sets of mix compositions of, for example, 8, 15 and 30% waste. A larger amount of waste used in the production process (without adversely affecting the technical properties of the bricks) would allow more waste to be utilized.
However, they do not pay attention to a detailed study of the porosity of the bricks. For this purpose, traditional microscopic and other methods (optical and electron microscope) can be used to determine the size of pores, their nature (closed or open). The characteristics of pores can give a lot of information about their effect on the thermal conductivity of bricks.
The figures included in the article are of poor quality, and no 3D figures were used, which would have done a much better job of presenting the internal structure of the bricks.
Given the concerns outlined above and the overall impression from reading the article, I believe that it should be significantly rewritten and supplemented to meet the requirements of a publishable article.
