Optimised Hydration and Durability of Non-Autoclaved Aerated Concrete via Lignin-Based Ionic Additive
, Adiya Zhumagulova 1,* and Assel Jexembayeva 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The introduction must be revised and made it more specific to the study.
2- Including more references in the literature part.
3- Figure 1 needs to be revised and more clear.
4- Tables 1&2 should move to “2. Materials and Methods”
5- Line 132 write the standard number.
6- Figs 2&3 in section 2. Materials and Methods should move to the rustles section and include the set up In section 2 if have it.
7- Figs 4-10 use different colors to make it clear. The lines is quite confusing.
8- The result section needs to be revised and compare the finding with other references resulting.
9- Figs 11&12 need to be revised for the low resolution.
10- The conclusion is too long make it shorter and neat as points.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Comments 1: The introduction must be revised and made it more specific to the study.
Response: The introduction is revised. The edited text is highlighted in color.
Comments 2: Including more references in the literature part.
Response: Additional sources are included in the Introduction section and the main results are described in more detail in the cited publications. The added text is highlighted in color.
Comments 3: Figure 1 needs to be revised and more clear.
Response: Figure 1 has been changed and a description of the technological process of MIA production has been added. The added text is highlighted in color.
Comments 4: Tables 1&2 should move to “2. Materials and Methods”.
Response: Tables 1 and 2 have been moved to the “Materials and Methods” section.
Comments 5: Line 132 write the standard number.
Response: The numbering of line 132 has been edited in accordance with the design requirements.
Comments 6: Figs 2&3 in section 2. Materials and Methods should move to the rustles section and include the set up In section 2 if have it.
Response: Figures 2, 3 are included in subsection 2.1 Methods.
Comments 7: Figs 4-10 use different colors to make it clear. The lines is quite confusing.
Response: In Figures 4-10, the graph lines are indicated in different colors.
Comments 8: The result section needs to be revised and compare the finding with other references resulting.
Response: The Results section is supplemented with a comparison of the data obtained with previous studies. The added text is highlighted in color.
Comments 9: Figs 11&12 need to be revised for the low resolution.
Response: Figures 11,12 added in better image quality.
Comments 10: The conclusion is too long make it shorter and neat as points.
Response: The conclusion is shortened. The text is highlighted in colour.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript aims to study the physical and mechanical properties of non autoclaved aerated concrete and obtain optimal concrete mix proportions to meet engineering applications. Before acceptance, the manuscript needs to focus on the following issues:
(1) The introduction section of the manuscript should combine the current research status, explain the innovation of the research content, and place the content related to materials and methods such as Table 1 and Table 2 in the next chapter.
(2) In the section on materials and methods, there is a lack of regulations, and the materials used, specific mix design, testing methods, etc. should be classified and introduced.
(3) The research or testing methods should be thoroughly introduced in the manuscript.
(4) The experimental results lack in-depth theoretical analysis and are only simple test results. Please analyze the experimental results in depth.
(5) The font in Figures 11 and 12 is too small, and the elements are not labeled in the figures. Please modify them.
(6) The discussion section of the manuscript is not thorough enough. Please delve into the mechanistic issues related to the changes in the physical and mechanical properties of non autoclaved aerated concrete based on the experimental results.
(7) Please limit the summary of the conclusion section to no more than 4 items.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment. We agree with given comments.
Comments 1: The introduction section of the manuscript should combine the current research status, explain the innovation of the research content, and place the content related to materials and methods such as Table 1 and Table 2 in the next chapter.
Response: The introduction is revised. Additional sources are included in the Introduction section and the main results are described in more detail in the cited publications. The added text is highlighted in color. Tables 1 and 2 have been moved to the “Materials and Methods” section.
Comments 2: In the section on materials and methods, there is a lack of regulations, and the materials used, specific mix design, testing methods, etc. should be classified and introduced.
Response: Subsection 2.2 Methods contains a list of laboratory tests of concrete samples, as well as references to the regulatory documents in accordance with which the studies were performed. The References section additionally includes standards, the text is highlighted in color.
Comments 3: The research or testing methods should be thoroughly introduced in the manuscript.
Response: The tests were carried out using standard methods described in the regulations, using certified equipment in an accredited laboratory. A description of the equipment is given in the Methods section. The text is highlighted in color.
Comments 4: The experimental results lack in-depth theoretical analysis and are only simple test results. Please analyze the experimental results in depth.
Response: The Results section is supplemented with a comparison of the data obtained with previous studies. The added text is highlighted in color. The Results section includes a subsection “Regression analysis of physical and mechanical characteristics data”.
Comments 5: The font in Figures 11 and 12 is too small, and the elements are not labeled in the figures. Please modify them.
Response: Figures 11,12 added in better image quality.
Comments 6: The discussion section of the manuscript is not thorough enough. Please delve into the mechanistic issues related to the changes in the physical and mechanical properties of non autoclaved aerated concrete based on the experimental results.
Response: The Discussion section has been supplemented with a mechanism, mechanisms related to changing the physical and mechanical properties of non-autoclaved cellular concrete, based on experimental results. The text is highlighted in color.
Comments 7: Please limit the summary of the conclusion section to no more than 4 items.
Response: The conclusion is shortened. The text is highlighted in colour.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are following:
- In abstract section, please explain clearly what type of durability enhanced by 15%.
- Abstract, please re-write the discussion related to XRD results and make it more clear and how this reduction in Portlandtie enhanced the strength perfomance.
- In introduction section, more literature to MIA and it application in concrete industry must be provide and widely discuss in the revised version.
- All the presented results and procedure in Figure 1, Table 1 and 2 must shifted to methodlogy section.
- Introduction and methodlogy section not well organized.
- Section 2, not well organized or discussed, please re-write this section following the journal style by provide clear discription to used materials, mix design, specimens preparation and curing system and tests procedure.
- Please re-organize the sec 3.1 and shift the Fig. 4 after last paragraph in this section.
- Refs 17-21, please provide clear reason and how these results supported your findings.
- Please provide Math. analysis between the strength, wear and water absorption.
- Section 3.6, both Figures 11 and 12 not clear and must be revise with clear images. As well as, more discussion for this obtained must be provide and link to strength , wear and other obtained engineering results.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We agree with all given comments. Please see the attachment.
Comments 1: In abstract section, please explain clearly what type of durability enhanced by 15%.
Response: In abstract section, the word "durability" has been replaced by the words "wear resistance". The text is highlighted in colour.
Comments 2: Abstract, please re-write the discussion related to XRD results and make it more clear and how this reduction in Portlandtie enhanced the strength perfomance.
Response: The Discussion section has been supplemented with a mechanism, mechanisms related to changing the physical and mechanical properties of non-autoclaved cellular concrete, based on experimental results. The text is highlighted in color.
Comments 3: In introduction section, more literature to MIA and it application in concrete industry must be provide and widely discuss in the revised version.
Response: Additional sources are included in the Introduction section and the main results are described in more detail in the cited publications. The added text is highlighted in color.
Comments 4: All the presented results and procedure in Figure 1, Table 1 and 2 must shifted to methodlogy section.
Response: Figure 1, Tables 1 and 2 have been moved to the “Materials and Methods” section.
Comments 5: Introduction and methodlogy section not well organized.
Response: The introduction is revised. Additional sources are included in the Introduction section and the main results are described in more detail in the cited publications. The added text is highlighted in color.
Comments 6: Section 2, not well organized or discussed, please re-write this section following the journal style by provide clear discription to used materials, mix design, specimens preparation and curing system and tests procedure.
Response: Section 2 is divided into two subsections. Subsection 2.1 Materials describes the production scheme of the additive, its composition, as well as the composition of the mixture for aerated concrete. Subsection 2.2 Methods contains a list of laboratory tests of concrete samples, as well as references to the regulatory documents in accordance with which the studies were performed.
Comments 7: Please re-organize the sec 3.1 and shift the Fig. 4 after last paragraph in this section.
Response: Figure 4 is inserted after the last paragraph in this section.
Comments 8: Refs 17-21, please provide clear reason and how these results supported your findings.
Response: The literature analysis is given in more detail, the edited text is highlighted in color. The sources in the list of references are also highlighted in color.
Comments 9: Please provide Math. analysis between the strength, wear and water absorption.
Response: The Results section includes a subsection “Regression analysis of physical and mechanical characteristics data”.
Comments 10: Section 3.6, both Figures 11 and 12 not clear and must be revise with clear images. As well as, more discussion for this obtained must be provide and link to strength, wear and other obtained engineering results.
Response: Figures 11,12 added in better image quality. The Discussion section has been supplemented with a mechanism, mechanisms related to changing the physical and mechanical properties of non-autoclaved cellular concrete, based on experimental results. The text is highlighted in color.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the author's revisions, which have improved the quality of the manuscript to a certain extent. However, there are still some issues worth paying attention to in the manuscript, and the manuscript can only be accepted after these revisions are made.
(1) Does the baffle around the pressure base plate in Figure 2e have a restraining effect on the specimen? During the pressure testing process, the constraint of the side baffle will have a significant impact on the mechanical properties. Is this clearly stated in the manuscript?
(2) What do Figures 3a and b mean? If so, just keep one image. I was advised to choose a better quality image to include in the manuscript.
(3) There is no text or symbol in the parentheses of a header in Table 3. Please check if there is any omission.
(4) The fonts in Figure 11 are too good and not conducive to readers' reading. Please modify them.
(5) The component symbols in Figures 12 and 13 should be labeled in the figures. The expressions in these two figures are not professional, please modify them.
(6) The conclusion section is too lengthy and does not highlight the focus of the research. Suggested to retain up to 3 conclusions, please revise it.
Author Response
Comments 1: Does the baffle around the pressure base plate in Figure 2e have a restraining effect on the specimen? During the pressure testing process, the constraint of the side baffle will have a significant impact on the mechanical properties. Is this clearly stated in the manuscript?
Response 1: The standard method is used to determine the wear resistance of concrete. The lower face of the sample is subjected to abrasion when it comes into contact with an abrasive surface. The samples are installed in special sockets on the abrasion circle. After installation, the free movement of the samples in the vertical plane is checked. The edited text is highlighted in color.
Comments 2: What do Figures 3a and b mean? If so, just keep one image. I was advised to choose a better quality image to include in the manuscript.
Response 2: Figures 3a and 3b illustrate the preparation of non-autoclaved aerated concrete blocks intended for testing. The name of the picture has been changed and highlighted in color.
It is up to you to choose a picture of a higher quality.
Comments 3: There is no text or symbol in the parentheses of a header in Table 3. Please check if there is any omission.
Response 3: Agree. The changes have been made and are highlighted in colour. Thank you for your observation.
Comments 4: The fonts in Figure 11 are too good and not conducive to readers' reading. Please modify them.
Response 4: According to Reviewer 3, the Figure 11 was excluded from the text.
Comments 5: The component symbols in Figures 12 and 13 should be labeled in the figures. The expressions in these two figures are not professional, please modify them.
Response 5: Agree. A table showing the substances identified in the analysis has been added to Figure 11. Unfortunately, this table was not included in the analysis results description in Figure 12. However, the laboratory presented a table with the results of a semi-quantitative analysis of the crystalline phases of both samples for decoding purposes. If these drawings do not meet the required image quality standards, they can be deleted.
Comments 6: The conclusion section is too lengthy and does not highlight the focus of the research. Suggested to retain up to 3 conclusions, please revise it.
Response 6: Agree. The research results are summarised and the conclusions are divided into three sections. The edited text is highlighted in color.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors totally not respond to provided comments in first reviwer' report.
- Authors should revise the manuscript following the provided comments.
- Most the chemical formula used in the text are wrong.
- The novelty of this study totally not highlight.
- Figure 11, math analysia should re-write as text and not excel image.
- No change in XRD results especially the figures.
English required editing
Author Response
Comments 1: Authors should revise the manuscript following the provided comments.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments on the article. We have tried to follow all of your recommendations.
Comments 2: Most the chemical formula used in the text are wrong.
Response 2: Agree. Amendments have been made to the chemical formulas of substances, the edited text is highlighted in color.
Comments 3: The novelty of this study totally not highlight.
Response 3: This article is the first to investigate the causes of decreased strength and increased brittleness in non-autoclaved aerated concrete. The authors have developed an additive composition that reduces the internal stress experienced by the cell walls of non-autoclaved aerated concrete during the hydration process.
The edited text is highlighted in color.
Comments 4: Figure 11, math analysia should re-write as text and not excel image.
Response 4: The Figure 11 was excluded from the text.
Comments 5: No change in XRD results especially the figures.
Response 5: Agree. A table showing the substances identified in the analysis has been added to Figure 11. Unfortunately, this table was not included in the analysis results description in Figure 12. However, the laboratory presented a table with the results of a semi-quantitative analysis of the crystalline phases of both samples for decoding purposes. If these drawings do not meet the required image quality standards, they can be deleted.
Comments on the Quality of English Language: English required editing.
Response: The English has been edited.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the author for editing the manuscript. The revised manuscript has been improved to a certain extent, but there are still some small issues that need to be addressed:
(1) The abstract of the manuscript is still quite lengthy and needs to be further streamlined. Please revise it.
(2) Please add titles for (a) and (b) below Figure 3.
(3) Figures 11 and 12 have not been modified according to the comments from the previous review. Legends should be added to these figures, and elements should be labeled. And the quality of the image is poor, with very few fonts, which is not conducive to readers' reading. Please make sure to modify them.
(4) Although the conclusion of the manuscript has been merged, it is still too lengthy and not concise enough. It is recommended to rewrite the conclusion.
Author Response
Comments 1: The abstract of the manuscript is still quite lengthy and needs to be further streamlined. Please revise it.
Response 1: Agree. The abstract of the manuscript has been fully revised.
Comments 2: Please add titles for (a) and (b) below Figure 3.
Response 2: As per your earlier suggestion, one higher-quality drawing was kept.
Comments 3: Figures 11 and 12 have not been modified according to the comments from the previous review. Legends should be added to these figures, and elements should be labeled. And the quality of the image is poor, with very few fonts, which is not conducive to readers' reading. Please make sure to modify them.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The figures have been modified and supplemented with data to make them easier for readers to understand.
Comments 4: Although the conclusion of the manuscript has been merged, it is still too lengthy and not concise enough. It is recommended to rewrite the conclusion.
Response 4: Agree. The conclusion of the manuscript has been rewritten.
Additional: The English has been refined to better convey the essence of the study.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsResults of XRD not revised and the Figure must be more clear with include the peaks name and 2 theta.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRequired English editing
Author Response
Comments 1: Results of XRD not revised and the Figure must be more clear with include the peaks name and 2 theta.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The figures have been modified and supplemented with data to make them easier for readers to understand.
Additional: The English has been refined to better convey the essence of the study.
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the author for the revisions. The quality of the revised manuscript has indeed been improved. However, there are still some details in the manuscript, please pay attention to:
(1) Although figures 11 and 12 have been modified, the font in the figures is very small and difficult to read. In addition, the quality and effect of the image production are relatively poor. Please modify them.
(2) Some data in the table are marked with "*", which should be explained in the manuscript.
(3) The fonts in the figures and tables should be consistent with the main text. Please modify them.
(4) There are still some small details in the manuscript, please refer to previous published articles and carefully check and revise them.
Author Response
Comments 1: Although figures 11 and 12 have been modified, the font in the figures is very small and difficult to read. In addition, the quality and effect of the image production are relatively poor. Please modify them.
Response 1: The figures have been reformatted to improve the quality of the images and the font of the data captions.
Comments 2: Some data in the table are marked with "*", which should be explained in the manuscript.
Response 2: In Tables 6 and 7, the symbol "*" has been replaced with the multiplication sign, which is used in the chemical formula of the substance.
Comments 3: The fonts in the figures and tables should be consistent with the main text. Please modify them.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The fonts used in the tables and figures have been edited to meet the required specifications.
Comments 4: There are still some small details in the manuscript, please refer to previous published articles and carefully check and revise them.
Response 4: The manuscript has been carefully re-read and its formatting and style compared with those of previously published articles in the journal. Any minor inconsistencies have been corrected and the text revised for clarity, precision and full compliance with the journal's requirements.
