The Stabilizing Effect of Carboxymethyl Cellulose on Foamed Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Detailed review can be seen in Word document.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors thank the reviewers for their manuscript review and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised manuscript.

thanks,

Yongcheng Ji

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Veja o arquivo anexado.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors thank the reviewers for their manuscript review and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised manuscript.

thanks,

Yongcheng Ji

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
please, find below several remarks on your interesting manuscript:

-          line 38 – particleboards instead of partition boards?
-          line 42 (table 1) please provide proper units (kg/m³); Drying shrinkage unit?
-          line 86 please correct units (3 in superscript)
-          lines 142, 144, and 146 – add information about material providers
-          line 150 (figure 2) – please add a scale bar
-          line 161 – why you provided kg/m³ unit in the title of the table? Please add units to table columns; are you sure all the data in the table was the same excluding the bubble column?
-          line 181 – where you mentioned Figure 4, in my opinion, Figure 4 is not a chart, but these are two pictures only
-          line 191 – suggests saying stirring speed instead of foaming speed
-          line 212 – please give more information about digital microscope (producer? magnification?)
-          line 216 – I suggest saying “microscopic observation stand”
-          lines 220-221 please list this standard (and all remaining standards) in references
-          line 225 the formula (4) does not require 10⁶ since it depends on what units of data you will use (if you put mass in kg and dimensions in m, then 10^6 is useless)
-          line 235 – these two pictures in Figure 8 are not necessary, no new or special knowledge is provided
-          line 239 – please give the producer of electro-hydraulic press
-          line 263 (Figure 10) – sorry but nothing new in these pictures; more useful to describe the models and producers of the microscopes
-          lines 332-337 I suggest moving to the Methodology section
-          line 340 unnecessary dot between CMC and The
-          line 400 (Figure 16b): please explain why you used an exponential relationship with (R²=0.9) which may suggest that above the concentration of CMC over 0.5 the compressive strength still raise, since, according to the data in Figure 16a there is a decrease of compressive strength for the concentration of CMC = 0.5? Please consider a polynomial relationship, where R²=0.99 (see attached draft plot).

Best regards!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors thank the reviewers for their manuscript review and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised manuscript.

thanks,

Yongcheng Ji

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please read in detail published manuscripts on the topic that you studied and write yours in accordance with published ones. 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx