Field and Laboratory Assessment of Different Concrete Paving Materials Thermal Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Field and Laboratory Assessment of Different Concrete Paving Materials Thermal Behavior
Barišić et al…
The topic treated in this paper is about new proposed pavement materials to mitigate the urban heat island (UHI) phenomenon and could be suited for the sustainability Journal after some significant corrections. Firstly, I think that experimental used techniques and obtained results should support the abstract.
What are you referring to with the term thermal behavior?
Line 38 and 39… the former two sets of factors and the latter set of factors… is not clear what are referring to.
Line 129. More details about thermal conductivity measurements are required. Provide sufficient details to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher.
Line 175. Thermal conductivity values of pavement materials should be given with error standard values. Are these significantly different?
Line 191-205. I think that in addition to the difference in color and surface texture, heating and cooling speed measurement results should be properly explained with measured thermal properties.
Line 210. Which values of heat flux are referring to?
In figure 5… Why did DC sample not reach the starting (ambient) temperature as P and PC materials?.
Line 219 and Figure 8. To better control air temperature, field measurements on concrete and grass base should be done in artificial conditions.
Line 313 to 335, please delete it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is well written, which introduces the thermal properties and behavior of commonly used concrete paving materials in urban areas dense concrete and concrete pavers and pervious concrete paving flags and compared in terms of their thermal properties. However, literature review regarding the relevant issue is missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research of “field and laboratory assessment of different concrete paving materials thermal behavior” is worthwhile and presents an interesting challenge. The following comments were provided after reviewing the paper to improve its quality:
- To achieve the criterion, the abstract should be enhanced.
- For the reader to understand the goal of the study, the research objective should be clarified.
- The benefits of the research results should be added to make the study scientific worth.
- In line 134, the time of condition should be included.
- In figure 2, It is better to focus the lamplight on the same piece of concrete paver (P).
- Line 150, why was the temperature of 40 º c chosen?
- The details of the infrared thermography (IRT) method should be added.
- In Figure 7&8, the symbol of (º c) near air temperature is not necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I revised the manuscript " Field and laboratory assessment of different concrete paving materials thermal behavior " and first I would like to evidence the original and good work made. The topic is crucial at the moment in the new material science field.
This is a scientific manuscript, but at the end it is important to evidenze the real impact in term of Sustainable resulta and also the economics impact for example in cost reduction
Suggested articles
1) Nan Yang, D. Knez, G. Vinai, P. Torelli, R. Ciancio, Pasquale Orgiani, and C. Aruta, Improved Structural Properties in Homogeneously Doped Sm0.4Ce0.6O2−δ Epitaxial Thin Films: High Doping Effect on the Electronic Bands, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 12, 47556 (2020).
2) Nan Yang, P. Orgiani, E. Di Bartolomeo, Vi. Foglietti, P. Torelli, A. V. Ievlev, G. Rossi, S.Licoccia, G. Balestrino, S. V. Kalinin, and C. Aruta*, Effects of Dopant Ionic Radius on Cerium Reduction in Epitaxial Cerium Oxide Thin Films, J. Phys. Chem. C ,121, 8841 (2017).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
None
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper seems to be well revised.
