Molasses-Modified Mortars: A Sustainable Approach to Improve Cement Mortar Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe results of this paper are important since it is concerning the in-depth analyses of cement mortar samples containing increasing quantities of sugar cane molasses. The conclusions are not far from what the literature already presents, but the approach of the present work, regarding the study from multiple points of view, makes the present work publishable. Some small observations should be addressed before being accepted:
Title: ok
Abstract: ok and:
- line 29 – it is not clear the value of the temperature.
Keywords: ok
Introduction: ok and:
- Table 1 – when mentioning the data in this table, it is worth to remind that the SCM composition can vary, as mentioned in paragraph from lines 45-50ș
- this chapter has to contain another paragraph that should emphasize more the novelty of the present study, compared to the already mentioned former studies.
Materials And Mix Design: ok
Testing Program: ok and:
- details might be added regarding the mechanical testing machine and the protocols used for compressive and flexural testing.
Results and discussion: ok and:
- Figure 5 – the 1.50% mark might be erased since the maximum SCM percentage is 1.2.
Conclusions: ok and:
- this chapter must be entirely rewritten with the following aims: i) do not repeat the same information that was already presented in the paper; ii) use well defined paragraphs to express your concluding thoughts and not telegraphic paragraphs that present the same data from Results and discussion chapter; iii) emphasize the novelty of your work and finish with some suggestions for future research.
Bibliography: ok
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time, constructive feedback, and insightful comments on our manuscript. All comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and fully addressed in the revised version. Their contributions have greatly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of this work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents the results of an experimental study aimed at analyzing the potential of SugarCane Molasses (SCM) as a bio-based additive in cement mortars. A comprehensive experimental program was conducted to support the research, which consists of the study of several factors such as: workability, compressive strength, flexural strength, thermal behavior during hydration, durability, and density. In general, the paper is well structured and there are some valuable aspects.
Point 1. Please summarize the introduction section and eliminate repetitive elements, as it is too long.
Also, it should be better highlighted what’s the novelty of the paper. Authors are invited to highlight that to date there several works addressed at developing eco-friendly materials to be applied within the constructions including also recycled components. Among the others, Authors may refer among the others, the following works:
- org/10.3390/app11031011
- org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.028
Point 2. Please review the structure of the chapters and sub-chapters in the manuscript. There are some paragraphs without numbering. Below are a few observations:
- rather than "Materials," it should be "2.1 Materials" (see line 107);
- rather than "Mixing Procedure and Curing Method," it should be "2.2 Mixing Procedure and Curing Method" (see line 137).
Point 3. In the paragraph "Mixing Procedure and Curing Method," the quantities of the mix design and the sample preparation procedures were described. However, it's not clear how many samples were made for each percentage of SCM. Please provide this information, along with explanatory images. If available, we also recommend including some photographs taken during the sample preparation stages.
Additionally, it is recommended to move the information regarding the dimensions of the specimens from the "3. Testing Program" chapter to this paragraph (2.2 Mixing Procedure and Curing Method), as it would provide a more detailed understanding of the experiment.
Point 4. The "3. Testing Program" chapter is too brief. It only provides an indication of the protocols used for the laboratory tests. Therefore, it is recommended to improve the chapter by providing more information on the procedures utilized.
Point 5. The manuscript contains some inconsistencies that need to be reviewed. In particular, the abstract states that:
[…]
At 0.25% SCM, compressive strength (47.5 MPa at 28 days) and flexural strength (~2.9 MPa) closely matched the control, supported by sustained hydration heat release and positive temperature differentials.
[…]
However, in the paragraph "4.2. Compressive Strength," it is stated that "the control mix (0% SCM) demonstrated the highest compressive strength, reaching the peak near 80 MPa at 28 days."
Therefore, the statement in the abstract that the 0.25% SCM content "closely matched the control" is misleading. It also tends to downplay the loss of compressive strength, which is not at all negligible as it amounts to 40%.
Point 6. The "4.2. Compressive Strength" paragraph is incomplete. Please provide all the compressive strength results obtained with the different percentages of SCM. The strengths obtained with dosages of 0.75%, 1.00%, and 1.25% are not available. For clarity, it is also recommended that you present the results in an explanatory table.
Point 7. In the conclusions, please also rephrase point number 2, because while the flexural strength for the 0.25% SCM dosage is "comparable to control," the same cannot be said for the compressive strength for the same reasons mentioned above.
Point 8. In general, since there is no information about the number of samples and therefore the available data, how reliable are the experimental results? It is suggested that you include a statistical analysis of the data to evaluate the main statistical parameters such as mean, median, standard deviation, etc. and reduce uncertainties.
Point 9. In light of these observations, is the use of SCM in cement mortars considered useful, effective, and sustainable, and can it truly play a crucial role in this type of material? Please provide a discussion on this.
Point 10. What are the future developments of this research? Please integrate the conclusion with these aspects if possible.
Point 11. In the References section, it would be helpful to add the DOI to each bibliographic reference. This would help ensure simpler and more reliable traceability for all cited sources.
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time, constructive feedback, and insightful comments on our manuscript. All comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and fully addressed in the revised version. Their contributions have greatly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of this work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled “Molasses-Modified Mortars: A Sustainable Approach to Improve Cement Mortar Performance” is partly in line with the Construction Materials journal. This article is based on original research in the area of modifying building materials. The information presented there is interesting. However, the trials do not give positive results the research is correctly presented. The article is well organised and written and requires only slight revision before publication:
- Abstract: stresses the aim of the article. What is the purpose of modification?
- Introduction: The last paragraph has to be modified and present the novelty of the approach.
- Methodology: The information about the statistical analysis is missing.
- Discussion: The obtained results have to be discussed with existing literature. It is particularly important because the additive decreases material properties. Why does it happen?
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable time, constructive feedback, and insightful comments on our manuscript. All comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and fully addressed in the revised version. Their contributions have greatly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of this work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper may be accepted in the current revised version.
