On the Properties Evolution of Eco-Material Dedicated to Manufacturing Artificial Reef via 3D Printing: Long-Term Interactions of Cementitious Materials in the Marine Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

The article reported the development of properties of eco-material related to manufacturing of artificial reef using 3D printing considering long-term interaction of 3 different types of cementitious materials under different marine environments. In general, the article is well written, however the reviewer is of the view more information about the tests conducted to establish the mechanical properties (flexural strength, compressive strength, and young’s modulus) and the biomass calculation along with photographs of the tests may be provided. Further, simplified empirical or numerical models to estimate the degradation of properties with age or the increase in biomass may be developed. The application of the research is not clearly described in the research reported. Further, the authors are advised to provide more information about the 3d printing of mortars. Most of the important properties related to rheology which may affect the results were not discussed. Detailed descriptions about the printing of mortar followed by the analogy behind the selection of size of specimens to be immersed on the sea floor are advised to be added in the revised manuscript. The authors are advised to discuss the location of immersion of prism specimens in the sea. Is the location and depth of the sea floor have any influence on the determined properties of the prism specimens. Please clarify.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript (Sustainability 1787132). We have considered the comments and revised the paper accordingly. Paragraphs added or corrected in the revised manuscript, according to reviewers’ comments, are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer: This manuscript focuses on monitoring the mechanical properties and biomass colonization of cementitious materials compatible with 3D printing. This manuscript cannot be published in its present form mostly because of some formatting issues and lack of discussion. The authors are urged to do their best in revising the manuscript in a clearer, more formal and understandable way. A deeper description of the major recommendations is presented as follows:

Comments:

1. Section 2.2. Specimen sizes for flexural, compressive, and elastic modulus tests are not described.

2. The test methods for bending, compressive and elastic modulus properties are not introduced, please add them.

3. Section 3. The numbering of the subsections is confusing, please check the full text.

4. The serial number in Figure 7 is wrong, please correct it.

5. Figure 7. Biomass measure of French samples is missing in 24 months, please add.

6. Section 3. There is a lack of discussion of the test results, only a qualitative description of the test results without an in-depth analysis.

7. For non-3D printed samples, how their biomass colonization and mechanical properties change is suggested to supplement.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript (Sustainability 1787132). We have considered the comments and revised the paper accordingly. Paragraphs added or corrected in the revised manuscript, according to reviewers’ comments, are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is of interest and the text is well written. The techniques involved, such as 3D printing, are novel and gaining attention. The use of such techniques in marine environments can provide many benefits.

I suggest the authors describe more in detail the results, such as the obtained biomass weights and the mechanical results. Additional comparisons among the different countries involved must be included as well as a further description of Figures 7 (named wrongly as 6) and 8. 

Furthermore, the paragraph contained between lines 179-181 must be deleted as it seems to have been copied from the instructions of the article.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript (Sustainability 1787132). We have considered the comments and revised the paper accordingly. Paragraphs added or corrected in the revised manuscript, according to reviewers’ comments, are marked up using the “Track Changes” function. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please pay attention to the normative format of the manuscript.