Laboratory Evaluation of Sustainable PMA Binder Containing Styrene-Isoprene-Styrene (SIS) and Thermoplastic Polyurethane

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors,

This paper reported some interesting results about the adding of two polymer material in order to improve properties of asphalt binder. My comments are:

There is lack of data about the mixer used for preparation of samples as well as for procedure of preparation test specimen for BBR test (125 × 6.35 × 12.7mm).

Figure 4 – from the Figure it cannot be see the viscosity value at 15 % of added SIS – although the authors stated the value in the text, my suggestion is to draw a new Figure.

ANOVA can describe the effect of one or more factors on a particular observed hypothesis and accordingly it can be developed several models (one-factor, two-factor, etc.) that allow easy description of significant tasks.  So, my opinion is that the authors can get more data pullout of ANOVA.

Also, it might be interesting to do a SEM measurement to give the authors an insight into the structure of the prepared samples (cracks will be visible on SEM micrographs).

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your effective review, which improves the quality of research.

The author did best to answer the reviewer's comment.

Please find the attached file.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Table 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, editing errors, there is no SIS in these tables.
2. In line 76, isoprene (C5H8) should be corrected to subscript font
3. State the full names of the PMA, RTFO, and PAV
4. In order to achieve sustainable development, used AC must be recycled. The author had better discuss the impact of polymers on the recycling of used AC.
5. The manuscript states the improvement of the mechanical and physical properties of the newly prepared binder. However, the reaction mechanism of adding the polymer to the original adhesive is not explained. It is best for the author to discuss in detail how the added polymer improves performance.
6. What are the molecular weights of SIS and TPU used in this study?
7. Will the new PMA binder developed in this research affect the interaction between the aggregate and the binder?

Author Response

Thank you so much for your effective review which improves the quality of research.

The author did best to answer the reviewer's comment.

Please find the attached file.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting paper. Some comments:

1. Line 46. Which performance properties can be improved by using TPU? And it is better to avoid cite several papers to support one general viewpoint.
2. Line 58, which kind of cracking resistance? fatigue cracking or thermal cracking?
3. The flow chart is clear.
4. Figure 1, only one temperature is used for BBR, how to decide the low PG for each material?
5. Figure 1, since the use of TPU and SIS may affect the high-temperature properties of new material, why a single temperature is used for the MSCR test?
6. The analysis is reliable.
7. The conclusion number 6 should be highlighted since it is the main objective of this paper.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your effective review which improves the quality of research.

The author did best to answer the reviewer's comment.

Please find the attached file.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I the reviewed Manuscript only "cosmetic" changes were made. Please, once again pay attention to the reviewers comments and rewritten the manuscipt according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Please see the attachment.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript states the improvement of the mechanical and physical properties of the newly prepared binder. However, the reaction mechanism of adding the polymer to the original adhesive is not explained. It is best for the author to discuss in detail how the added polymer improves performance.


I can not find the suitable response to this problem in the conclusion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Please see the attachment.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the authors' hard work. Since all my comments are revised, no further revision is needed. I will suggest performing more temperatures for BBR in the following study, since the low PG is a critical parameter to evaluate the material

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

I appreciate your decision which improved the quality of the paper.

 

Thank you.