The Influence of Selected Material Variables of Photocatalytic Cementitious Composites on the Self-Cleaning Properties and Air Purification Efficiency from NOx Pollutants
Elena Dilonardo
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the influence of selected material variables on the self-cleaning and air purification efficiency are analyzed and optimized, this is a meaningful topic. However, in terms of content, there are also some shortcomings and problems worthy of discussion. Some details of comments and suggestions are as follows:
1. There are too few conclusions in the abstract, which experimental variables should be added to have the least influence.
2. Line 33 uses the abbreviation "IUPAC" to define photocatalysis, and it is recommended to add the meaning of "IUPAC".
3. In table6, "area" should be added to the last word on the first line
4. What does the abbreviation "S P" stand for in Table8 will also appear later in the text, and it is recommended to write all letters. This situation also occurs in line484, please modify it as well.
5. The last sentence of the last point of 2.2 Methods describes the experimental results, and it is recommended to write this sentence into the third Results; At the same time, an extra parenthesis appeared and suggested deletion.
6. The "D" in Table9 appears too abruptly and should be noted as "the mortar flow diameter".
7. Please explain the origin of the value "25%" in line 427?
8. The paragraph on page 16 describes the information in figure 18, where "TRI-R" does not appear in figure18 and should be changed to visible light.
9. Figure18 alone cannot support the phrase line536-537: "The most significant variable in the case of compressive as in tensile strength was the water-to-cement ratio (Fig. 22). It is recommended to supplement the graphs corresponding to other variables.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article. We are pleased to receive your comments. According to suggestions, we have modified our article. In the attached pdf the point-by-point responses to the comments are included.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents a direct language that facilitates the review, however some details and specific issues need to be better presented or discussed by the authors, as described in annex.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article. We are pleased to receive your comments. According to suggestions, we have modified our article. In the attached pdf the point-by-point responses to the comments are included.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written and presented and the conclusions are backed up by experimental data.
Given that the journal title is "Sustainability" and that a large part of its readership may not be 'Materials Engineering' focussed, I am of the opinion that the paper should make a case for the merits of such mortars with respect to Sustainability.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article. We are pleased to receive your comments. According to suggestions, we have modified our article. In the attached pdf the point-by-point responses to the comments are included.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
In the manuscript entitled “The influence of selected material variables of photocatalytic cementitious composites on the self-cleaning and air purification from NOx efficiency”, M. Kalinowski et al. have reported the influence of seven selected independent variables on the self-cleaning and air purification efficiency of cement-based photocatalytic composites.
First of all, the abstract is too long, it should be reduced, reporting only briefly the motivation and the best obtained results: eliminate from line 8 to 10 and start from “This work …”. Moreover, I suggest also to specify the reported photocatalytic application that is the air purification from NO and, in general, NOx pollutants.
In the introduction, I suggest substituting “nitric” with “nitrogen” (page 1 line 29).
I suggest to write as equation (not in text) the general reactions involved in a photocatalytic process.
What is “Plackett-Burman plan of the experiment”? It is not clear, please, define.
Please, define in the introduction: “the photocatalysts VLA and UV-A”.
Please, refer to “Cementous mortar” and not only “mortar”.
NO is a type of “NOx” pollutant; therefore, correct at page 2 line 96.
The Table 1 is not clear; please, specify all the reported variables.
What is the Rietveld method? Please, describe it and discuss; improve the image quality of the plots in Figure 5.
The Materials and Methods section is too chaotic. I suggest to add the data on the used materials in supplementary information; in the material and methods section, the authors should indicate the used materials, methods and characterization analyses/procedures.
The authors should add the involved photocatalytic reactions/mechanisms.
Please, add the error bars to the reported data.
Which is the measurements repeatability and reproducibility? Discuss.
What is “Pareto charts”? Please, define and discuss. Improve the image quality of Figure 20.
Since the process, the photocatalysis, is based on chemical reactions; please, evaluate the chemical effect, and discuss on the involved chemical reactions.
The overall manuscript is poor clear, I can accept with major revisions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our article. We are pleased to receive your comments. According to suggestions, we have modified our article. In the attached pdf the point-by-point responses to the comments are included.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
In my opinion, the revised version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
