Influence of the Addition of Carbon Fibres on Gypsum–PCM Mixtures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper presents topical issue. Introduction explain clearly scope of the research, the content is succinctly described, the research design and methods are clearly stated. The results are original and described in right way. The conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article, all the cited references are relevant to the research.
The presentation of the issues discussed in the article, as the authors admit, differs from those presented in the cited literature. The authors' awareness that the problem they tackled in their work is complex allows for an objective assessment of their results, which are suitable for publication in the dimension presented in this article.

Remarks:
- [34] and Fig. 9 are not cited in the text;
- line 515 – should be Fig. 6 instead Fig. 66;
- line 250 – to remove;
- please check the correctness of the units in Table 4 (dot ?);
- the legend in Figs. 4-8 as well as the axis descriptions are less legible than in Fig. 3 - please correct;
- the description under Table 7 (lines 522, 523, 524) adapt to the descriptions under Tables 5 and 6.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the time spent correcting this article. Below are answers to the remarks.

Remarks:
- [34] and Fig. 9 are not cited in the text;

Indeed. Modifications have been done.

- line 515 – should be Fig. 6 instead Fig. 66;

Indeed. Modifications have been done.

- line 250 – to remove;

OK, modifications have been done.

- please check the correctness of the units in Table 4 (dot ?);

Indeed, we changed the dot by coma to be in accordance with the other values.

We also checked to use only coma everywhere in the article.

- the legend in Figs. 4-8 as well as the axis descriptions are less legible than in Fig. 3 - please correct;

We increased the size of the legend as suggested but the reviewer and thank him for this good suggestion.

- the description under Table 7 (lines 522, 523, 524) adapt to the descriptions under Tables 5 and 6.

OK 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

I read your manuscript with much interest and found it complete, coherent and well written. 

I have only a few requests:

1. The title of Section 3.3.2 I think should be changed because it is the same as the previous one. Perhaps you meant to write "Thermal performances?"

2. In the introduction could you include a few lines in which you describe the most innovative aspect of your work?

3. Could you include why, of all the binders, you decided to use gypsum? 

4. I suggest this very new https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/12/4806 review on the use of PCMs in construction because your bibliography seems a bit dated. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the time spent correcting this article. Below are answers to the remarks.

I have only a few requests:

1. The title of Section 3.3.2 I think should be changed because it is the same as the previous one. Perhaps you meant to write "Thermal performances?"

We agree and performed the modifications.

2. In the introduction could you include a few lines in which you describe the most innovative aspect of your work?

Line 93. we added : “The present study aims to better understand the influence of innovative materials made with the addition of carbon fiber on the efficiency of mixes of gypsum and PCM.”

3. Could you include why, of all the binders, you decided to use gypsum? 

Line 43, we modified the sentence to :

“Among the different ways to incorporate PCM into building materials, the integration of PCM microcapsules into gypsum renders appears to be a promising solution.”

4. I suggest this very new https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/12/4806 review on the use of PCMs in construction because your bibliography seems a bit dated. 

We read thoroughly this article and indeed found it appropriate. We therefore included it in our reference (number [2]). 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors! The presented article has a certain scientific and practical interest, but there are some comments:

1. Indicate the manufacturer of calcium sulfate hemihydrate;

2. Indicate the purity of the calcium sulfate hemihydrate used. If there are impurities, indicate them;

3. Describe the chemistry of the setting process of calcium sulfate hemihydrate (in the form of equations of chemical reactions);

4. Indicate the manufacturer of the mechanical press and the principle of its operation;

5. Present the composition and properties of the six compositions being developed in “materials and methods” in the form of a table.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the time spent correcting this article. Below are answers to the remarks.

1. Indicate the manufacturer of calcium sulfate hemihydrate

OK. We indicated “brand Goldband from manufacturer Knauf” line 152

2. Indicate the purity of the calcium sulfate hemihydrate used. If there are impurities, indicate them;

Unfortunately we have no information about this. The only information given in the data sheet is :

"Knauf Goldband is a lightweight gypsum plaster in white powder form, consisting of gypsum (CaSO4*½H2O) and various additives."

We assess that the product is at least 99 wt.% gypsum and that the impurities would not have a strong impact on the thermal conductivity.

We added the adjective "conventional commercial gypsum".

3. Describe the chemistry of the setting process of calcium sulfate hemihydrate (in the form of equations of chemical reactions);

We are sorry, but these equations are basic chemistry that everyone can found in any book or even in Wikipedia. This is not the point of this article. We fear that by providing to much information, the reader could be lost and not integrate the main message of this article.

4. Indicate the manufacturer of the mechanical press and the principle of its operation;

Ok, it has been added → Zwick Z020

5. Present the composition and properties of the six compositions being developed in “materials and methods” in the form of a table

The discussion and information provided about the materials used are too developed and too long to simply put them in a table (1 entire page of description). We fear that it would be not attractive to the reader and not appropriate for athe design of an article. We hope the reviewer will consider our point of view.

Reviewer 4 Report

Please consider the below issues

1-the originality must be more focussed, and the difference between this study and the existing literature must be provided

2-please identify all phases in Figure 2

3-"No interpretation was found to explain these discrepancies, but it should be noted that the materials and test procedures are slightly different in the actual study." what do you mean here

4-the conclusion must be shortebed

The minor grammar mistakes can be edited with native speaker 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the time spent correcting this article. Below are answers to the remarks.

1-the originality must be more focussed, and the difference between this study and the existing literature must be provided.

It is developed in the section Line 87-Line 100.

"In their study, [....] the industrial construction sector "

And in the section Line 517-544 :

"Taking into account these results [...] increase of stored energy."

 And also in the end of the article :

Line 606-612

"The total thermal energies absorbed by the PCM [...] between theoretical and experimental values."

2-please identify all phases in Figure 2

Thanks for this suggestion. We made the modifications.

3-"No interpretation was found to explain these discrepancies, but it should be noted that the materials and test procedures are slightly different in the actual study." what do you mean here

It is developed in the paragraph Line 530-544

"No interpretation was found [...] increase of stored energy."

4-the conclusion must be shortebed

Thank you for this suggestion, however we tried to included all the important information in the conclusion, so that a reader can have an overview of the whole article only by reading it. We performed many different tests, and also compared with large size test. We fear that by shortening the conclusion, important observations of the study could be missed by the reader.  We hope that the reviewer will consided our point of view.