The Use of Aluminosilicate Ash Microspheres from Waste Ash and Slag Mixtures in Gypsum-Lime Compositions
, Maria Zavadko, Tatiana Novichenkova, Kirill Petropavlovskii and Mikhail Sulman
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “The use of aluminosilicate ash microspheres from waste ash and slag mixtures in gypsum-lime compositions” by Victoria Petropavlovskaya et al. gives a practical study on recovery of wastes from coal burning power plant, which is helpful in construction works and environment-friendship.
The MS gave a way for how and has confirmed the effectiveness of using an aluminosilicate product for the enrichment of ash and slag mixtures as a component of compositions based on low-grade gypsum binder. Prescription compositions of compositions with chemical additives have been developed. They found it is possible to provide the specified performance properties of compositions using aluminosilicate microspheres. With the joint introduction of the aluminosilicate component and the alkaline additive, the structural, physical and mechanical properties of the modified composition are improved in the MS.
The way proposed and the result obtained in the MS could make the construction works comfortable and environment-friendly.
I recommend the MS accepted after the following two issues are addressed:
1) The language needs smoothed. Although I am not a native English speaker, I still found that the rhetoric and grammar are needed revised and smoothed, which make many sentences crabbed.
2) As a scientific paper, authors should describe all the methods detailedly that they use to analyze their samples for each kind of data, including the laboratories, the machine, the procedures, the calculation and the errors, etc. All these descriptions help readers to evaluate the quality of data they obtained, and make it easy to follow.
The language needs smoothed. Although I am not a native English speaker, I still found that the rhetoric and grammar are needed revised and smoothed, which make many sentences crabbed.
Author Response
1) The language needs smoothed. Although I am not a native English speaker, I still found that the rhetoric and grammar are needed revised and smoothed, which make many sentences crabbed.
Improved the grammar of the manuscript.
2) As a scientific paper, authors should describe all the methods detailedly that they use to analyze their samples for each kind of data, including the laboratories, the machine, the procedures, the calculation and the errors, etc. All these descriptions help readers to evaluate the quality of data they obtained, and make it easy to follow.
Added a more detailed description of the methods and equipment used.
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript is about Economical Manhole Option by Analyzing the Life Cycle Cost: A Comparison Between Cement Concrete and Polymer Concrete Manholes. The presented manuscript must be improved by the following comments. Therefore, i kindly ask authors to prepare a point-by-point rebuttal response letter and must be subjected to the manuscript as well, considering the following comments with sufficient explanations.
1) What are the main factors that contribute to the failure of manholes in a sewage system, and how can they be prevented?
2) Are there any regulations or standards that govern the construction and maintenance of manholes in the US, and how do they compare to those in other countries?
3) In what other applications besides manholes are polymer concrete materials commonly used, and what are the benefits and drawbacks of using them in these applications?
4) Can the findings of this study be extrapolated to other regions or countries with different environmental conditions, or is it necessary to conduct additional research to determine the cost-effectiveness of polymer concrete manholes in these contexts?
5) How do the costs of repairing and replacing damaged manholes compare to the costs of preventative maintenance, and what strategies can be implemented to minimize these expenses over the long term?
6) In the abstract, the following sentence quoted “No study has been conducted 14 that compares the life cycle cost (LCC) of cement concrete and polymer concrete manholes”, which is completely wrong and a paper from your group in 2018 with the following DOI address” doi = {10.1061/9780784481301.050}has been published. How can you explain it?
Author Response
Comments do not relate to the subject of a scientific article, perhaps this is a technical error.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
In this paper, the authors present an interesting research related to the use of aluminosilicate ash microspheres from waste ash and slag mixtures in gypsum-lime compositions.
As a weak elements
Please delete the word "Introduction": from the beginning of the abstract as well as the other chapter titles Materials and methods:, Conclusions: These are not necessary in the ABSTRACT.
Although the abstract contains the necessary information for such a paper, it must be made more attractive. It is too technical and does not attract the reader.
In figure 1, the two pictures can be resized to align with the text format.
For figure 2, the 4 pictures should be highlighted with a-d and integrated into the existing explanations in the text. The same remark for figure 3.
Figures 4 and 5 from page 8 should be renumbered.
The ”Discussion” chapter is too brief, it should be developed more at the level of comments on the results presented where they are.
Generally speaking, the presentation is rather superficial and compliance with the rules of writing and the format imposed by the journal and its editorial demands has not been verified
As notable elements
The paper is well documented, contains almost 50 bibliographic references and presents electron microscopy analyzes that identify microstructural peculiarities of the complex chemical bonds that appear.
Author Response
Сorrections have been made.
Reviewer 4 Report
Paper ID: materials-2356290
Type:Article
Title: The use of aluminosilicate ash microspheres from waste ash and slag mixtures in gypsum-lime compositions
Authors: Victoria Petropavlovskaya , Maria Zavadko , Tatiana Novichenkova , Kirill Petropavlovskii , Mikhail Sulman
This paper investigates a mineral complex consisting of slaked lime and an aluminosilicate additive in the form of ash microspheres on the physical and mechanical properties of modified gypsum stone. Although the testing methods and compared results attained in the present study show the importance of the paper, this paper is a technical report rather scientific paper.
1. Novelty in comparison to recent literature? Need to be emphasized in the last paragraph of Introduction section.
2. The relevant literature must discuss the results in the paper.
3. Abstract: Section is very long. Please remove the “introduction”, “Materials and methods” …. In Abstract.
4. Introduction: The part is long. There is no integrity of meaning between some paragraphs. Section should be more pronounced.
5. “The composition of the composition used the additive of slaked lime” ?
6. Please use “×” instead of “x”.
7. Please give mix ratios and standards used.
8. Tables and Figures: Decimal separator should be “.”
9. Please add standard deviations of results.
10. Figs are unacceptable for a scientific paper.
11. Discussion: The relevant literature must discuss the results in the paper.
12. Throughout the text, some typos and grammatical errors must be eliminated.
13. This paper is a technical report rather scientific paper.
14. I strongly suggest for authors present their conclusions more concisely, avoiding repetition of the obvious and simple results.
Throughout the text, some typos and major grammatical errors must be eliminated.
Author Response
- Novelty in comparison to recent literature? Need to be emphasized in the last paragraph of Introduction section.
The last paragraph of the "Introduction" section has been finalized: novelty has been introduced.
- The relevant literature must discuss the results in the paper.
References to the literature were also provided in the discussion of the results of the article.
- Abstract: Section is very long. Please remove the “introduction”, “Materials and methods” …. In Abstract.
Removed the specified words from the section.
- Introduction: The part is long. There is no integrity of meaning between some paragraphs. Section should be more pronounced.
We reviewed the section for semantic integrity: this part cannot be shortened by a large number of reviewed literary sources on the research topic.
- “The composition of the composition used the additive of slaked lime” ?
The proposal was reformulated more correctly.
- Please use “×” instead of “x”.
We do not use the multiplication sign anywhere, we use the variable x.
- Please give mix ratios and standards used.
The proportions of the mixture (compositions) are described in detail and are presented in Table 4. The standards used were added additionally to the text of the manuscript in the Materials and Methods section.
- Tables and Figures: Decimal separator should be “.”
Decimal separators have been fixed, replaced "," with ".", but, unfortunately, due to technical reasons, we could not do this in all pictures, we hope this is not critical.
- Figs are unacceptable for a scientific paper.
Corrected the abbreviation throughout the text of the manuscript.
- Discussion: The relevant literature must discuss the results in the paper.
References to the literature were also provided in the discussion of the results of the article.
- Throughout the text, some typos and grammatical errors must be eliminated.
The text of the manuscript was finalized.
- This paper is a technical report rather scientific paper.
This form is due to the need to provide a large number of results. Additionally, the text of the manuscript was revised.
- I strongly suggest for authors present their conclusions more concisely, avoiding repetition of the obvious and simple results.
The text of the manuscript was finalized for repetitions and grammatical errors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revisions have fully answered my concerns, and no further questions from me.
Author Response
We are very thankful for your consideration
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript is about utilization of aluminosilicate ash microspheres from waste ash and slag mixtures in gypsum-lime compositions. I kindly ask authors to prepare a point-by-point rebuttal response letter and must be subjected to the manuscript as well, considering the following comments.
1. What specific mineral additives were used in the modification of gypsum stone?
2. How was the aluminosilicate microsphere isolated from the ash and slag mixture?
3. What other physical and mechanical properties, besides compressive strength, were improved in the modified gypsum composition?
4. Can you describe the process of air hardening for the modified gypsum stone samples?
5. Are there any specific performance properties mentioned for the developed compositions using aluminosilicate microspheres and chemical additives?
6. How do the aluminosilicate microspheres contribute to creating comfortable living conditions for humans?
7. Can you explain the process of preserving the natural environment using waste-based compositions?
8. What are the specific applications and benefits of using the modified gypsum compositions in self-leveling floors, plastering, and puttying works?
9. Is there any mention of the reaction mechanism or chemical interactions involved in the modification process?
10. Are there any limitations or challenges mentioned regarding the use of the modified gypsum compositions?
11. What about the usage of metakaolinte as high reactive aluminosilicate clay for production of gypsum. As suggestion, the following papers can help you for reporting:
https://doi.org/10.3390/nano13071196, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16051863.
Author Response
- What specific mineral additives were used in the modification of gypsum stone?
As a mineral additive, an aluminosilicate microsphere was used - a product isolated during the enrichment of the ash and slag mixture. The article provides the following information: “As a component in the compositions, an enriched product of ash and slag waste processing, an aluminosilicate ash microsphere, was used. The starting material for obtaining aluminosilicate ash microspheres was ash and slag waste from fuel power plants in the Moscow region"
- How was the aluminosilicate microsphere isolated from the ash and slag mixture?
The aluminosilicate microsphere was obtained by enriching the ash and slag mixture. The process of enrichment of the ash and slag mixture with the separation of aluminosilicate ash microspheres is described in the Materials and Methods section. We have added more details: «Magnetic separation after flotation made it possible to remove magnetically susceptible inclusions in the slurry stream. They were attracted to the magnetic system of the drum under the influence of a magnetic field and moved to the unloading zone. Then, under the action of water pressure from the nozzles, the magnetic particles were dumped into the discharge chute, and the pure aluminosilicate component (microsphere) went through the last stage – screening».
- What other physical and mechanical properties, besides compressive strength, have been improved in the modified gypsum composition?
The main task was to increase the strength of the modified gypsum composition. Additionally, other technological characteristics were improved: the geometry of the resulting surface, the absence of sagging and air bubbles in the hardened layer. This is achieved due to the smooth and sphere-like surface of the aluminosilicate component. Aluminosilicate microspheres facilitate the processing of the resulting material.
- Can you describe the air curing process for modified gypsum stone samples?
The hardening process of gypsum binder has been described by several theories to date. According to the classical theory of A. A. Baikov, the hardening of gypsum binders proceeds in 3 stages. Stage 1 consists in the dissolution of semi-aqueous gypsum: the solution is quickly saturated and its supersaturation occurs. At the 2nd stage, setting (collo- dation) occurs. The resulting products from the supersaturated liquid phase are isolated in the form of finely dispersed colloidal particles. The mass loses plasticity, but does not acquire strength. Stage 3 - the period of crystallization. At this point, recrystallization of colloidal particles into large crystals and the formation of an intergrowth occurs. The curing process of the modified gypsum stone samples described in the study does not differ significantly. However, some points, of course, can be further clarified. For example, the introduction of mineral additives makes it possible to accelerate the process of crystallization of gypsum stone, since ash particles can be a substrate for crystallization.
- Are there any specific performance properties mentioned for the developed compositions using aluminosilicate microspheres and chemical additives?
Special performance properties were not determined within the framework of this study.
- How do the aluminosilicate microspheres contribute to creating comfortable living conditions for humans?
The introduction of an aluminosilicate microsphere makes it possible to increase the strength characteristics of the compositions due to the mechanical and physicochemical participation of ash particles in the process of the formation of a modified structure (pozzolanic effect).
Utilization and processing of the ash and slag mixture also improves the environmental component by reducing the landfills of man-made waste.
- Can you explain the process of preserving the natural environment using waste-based compositions?
The use of waste allows to reduce the percentage of areas allocated for landfills and disposal of man-made waste. Reducing the areas under landfills is an important step towards solving such environmental problems as pollution of soils and groundwater, water bodies, and so on. The reduction of the habitat of many animals is prevented.
- What are the specific applications and benefits of using modified gypsum compositions in self-leveling floors, plastering and puttying?
The use of gypsum compositions as a basis for the production of mixtures for self-leveling floors, plastering and puttying works has a number of advantages: ease of operation due to the high manufacturability of the resulting solutions, as well as a reduction in the production time. Gypsum compositions contribute to the creation of a favorable microclimate, they are able to regulate the humidity in the room, gypsum is a hypoallergenic material. The production of gypsum-based mixtures requires less energy.
- Is there any mention of the reaction mechanism or chemical interactions involved in the modification process?
Studies by other authors that are closest to the stated topic of this study are presented in the bibliographic list. However, it is worth noting the following. In the published studies of other authors, no attention is paid to the chemical interaction of the components in the compositions closest in composition. The aluminosilicate microsphere is considered by other authors as a mechanical agent. It increases the packing density of the particles. This study substantiates the physicochemical role of the ash component as a substrate for active crystallization of the gypsum binder and during interaction with alkali.
- Are there any limitations or problems mentioned regarding the use of modified gypsum compositions?
No limitations or problems were identified during the research.
- On the use of metakaolin as a highly reactive aluminosilicate clay for the production of gypsum. As a suggestion, the following documents may help you for reporting:
https://doi.org/10.3390/nano13071196 , https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16051863.
In future work, we will definitely pay special attention to the works provided by you using metakaolin. However, this work is devoted to the possibilities of using not finished products, but a mixture component, which we obtained from ash and slag waste. The study of such opportunities will contribute to the solution of environmental problems.
Reviewer 4 Report
Although I appreciate the efforts of the authors, My decision is final. This work is not eligible for a reputable journal such as Materials.
Author Response
We respect your opinion.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
In present form can be accepted for publication.
