Experimental Study on Expansive Soil Improved by Lignin and Its Derivatives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor: For the study to be accepted, the author (s) must respond to the following comments point by point to reach the level of a high-quality journal such as Sustanability.
1. The followings are my comments regarding this manuscript. The authors should briefly discuss their innovation in the abstract, which has to be improved with more information.
2. It is poorly written, missing the test procedure, explaining the calculations, and is disorganized. The abstract needs to be improved by highlighting this paper's key findings.The entire abstract section must be revised to briefly explain this research study's importance, investigations, and outcomes with advantages/significance.
Abstract :
3. The entire abstract section must be revised to briefly explain this research study's importance, investigations, and outcomes with advantages/significance.
4. Resent a detailed graphical abstract for this work, which could be more interesting for the reader community. The novelty of the study should be reflected in the abstract.
Introduction:
5. The introduction section is not up to the mark. In the introduction section, you only need to connect state-of-the-art to your paper goals. Hence modify the entire section accordingly and present the specific goals/research objectives in the last part of the introduction section.
6. Much literature mentioned in the introduction part looks out of scope. Hence all must be carefully checked and must be subject to removal. Only the in-scope articles must be retained and cited in the manuscript.
7. MAJOR comment: The authors requested and must add more information and supported studies to the introduction since the introduction is poor and needs to be strengthened. Recent publications in the area of clay soils, calcium additives in to the soils, calcium sulfate soils, and the Atterberg limits with compressive strength of the clay soils have to be explained and added in the introduction to justify the study; the following references have to be considered in the study :
· Predicting the chemical and mechanical properties of gypseous soils using different simulation technics
· Modeling and Statistical Evaluations of Unconfined Compressive Strength and Compression Index of the Clay Soils at Various Ranges of Liquid Limit
· 3-dimension stresses and new failure model to predict behavior of clay soils in various liquid limit ranges
· Characterizing the index properties, free swelling, stress–strain relationship, strength and compacted properties of polymer treated expansive CH clay soil using vipulanandan …
· Testing and Modeling the Short-Term Behavior of Lime and Fly Ash Treated Sulfate Contaminated CL Soil
Methodology:
1. A flowchart should be provided for the work process. The flow chart of the study has to be described in the steps.
2. Many grammatical errors need to be corrected. Several grammar errors can be observed in the paper, which is negatively affected by the paper's quality.
3. The standard for all the tests must be mentioned in the study.
4. Note that the laboratory conditions for these data sets differ based on various cases. There are two main challenges: first, the authors should validate and investigate different data and clarify how they have done it.
Results and discussion:
5. The results are not repeatable? Error bars for at least three data sets for the same testing condition must be provided.
Conclusion (s):
1. Conclusions have to be in numbers.
2. The conclusions are so poorly written. Please modify it to represent the outcomes of the study. This major deduction from this study does not demonstrate adequate uniqueness/novelty of the finding from this detailed research.
3. Revision of the conclusions section is much required. It is not showcasing the entire essence of the detailed work presented in the paper. Also, inculcate the author's comments on the potential of the usage of graphene and its derivative with the comparison with potential alternatives in use for the current practice. This major deduction from this study, does not demonstrate adequate uniqueness/novelty of the finding from this detailed research.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Dear Editor: For the study to be accepted, the author (s) must respond to the following comments point by point to reach the level of a high-quality journal such as sustainability.
1. The followings are my comments regarding this manuscript. The authors should briefly discuss their innovation in the abstract, which has to be improved with more information.
2. It is poorly written, missing the test procedure, explaining the calculations, and is disorganized. The abstract needs to be improved by highlighting this paper's key findings.The entire abstract section must be revised to briefly explain this research study's importance, investigations, and outcomes with advantages/significance.
Abstract :
3. The entire abstract section must be revised to briefly explain this research study's importance, investigations, and outcomes with advantages/significance.
4. Resent a detailed graphical abstract for this work, which could be more interesting for the reader community. The novelty of the study should be reflected in the abstract.
Introduction:
5. The introduction section is not up to the mark. In the introduction section, you only need to connect state-of-the-art to your paper goals. Hence modify the entire section accordingly and present the specific goals/research objectives in the last part of the introduction section.
6. Much literature mentioned in the introduction part looks out of scope. Hence all must be carefully checked and must be subject to removal. Only the in-scope articles must be retained and cited in the manuscript.
7. MAJOR comment: The authors requested and must add more information and supported studies to the introduction since the introduction is poor and needs to be strengthened. Recent publications in the area of clay soils, calcium additives in to the soils, calcium sulfate soils, and the Atterberg limits with compressive strength of the clay soils have to be explained and added in the introduction to justify the study; the following references have to be considered in the study :
· Predicting the chemical and mechanical properties of gypseous soils using different simulation technics
· Modeling and Statistical Evaluations of Unconfined Compressive Strength and Compression Index of the Clay Soils at Various Ranges of Liquid Limit
· 3-dimension stresses and new failure model to predict behavior of clay soils in various liquid limit ranges
· Characterizing the index properties, free swelling, stress–strain relationship, strength and compacted properties of polymer treated expansive CH clay soil using vipulanandan …
· Testing and Modeling the Short-Term Behavior of Lime and Fly Ash Treated Sulfate Contaminated CL Soil
Methodology:
1. A flowchart should be provided for the work process. The flow chart of the study has to be described in the steps.
2. Many grammatical errors need to be corrected. Several grammar errors can be observed in the paper, which is negatively affected by the paper's quality.
3. The standard for all the tests must be mentioned in the study.
4. Note that the laboratory conditions for these data sets differ based on various cases. There are two main challenges: first, the authors should validate and investigate different data and clarify how they have done it.
Results and discussion:
5. The results are not repeatable? Error bars for at least three data sets for the same testing condition must be provided.
Conclusion (s):
1. Conclusions have to be in numbers.
2. The conclusions are so poorly written. Please modify it to represent the outcomes of the study. This major deduction from this study does not demonstrate adequate uniqueness/novelty of the finding from this detailed research.
3. Revision of the conclusions section is much required. It is not showcasing the entire essence of the detailed work presented in the paper. Also, inculcate the author's comments on the potential of the usage of graphene and its derivative with the comparison with potential alternatives in use for the current practice. This major deduction from this study, does not demonstrate adequate uniqueness/novelty of the finding from this detailed research.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for the revised file！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Respected Authors
Considering the formatting of the reference list, that is not in accordance with MDPI template, I suppose that presented study was originally formatted to another template and it was probably rejected.
Considering the reference list again. I observe that presented study is very poorly referenced and based on domestic (Chinese) sources only. I would accept it, if the problem was just of (Chinese) local importance, but it seems to be of global importance and the publication is intended to be spread worldwide.
Below, I made a list of minor editorial issues and also some major concerns about the duration of the curing time for soil based composites.
1. I'm not native English speaker and I cannot judge about English grammar and style, but some sentences sound strange to me and look like the effect of machine translation. Please check:
- line 11: Select samples ...
- line 12: and discuss the ...
- line 40 Such as adding lime ...
- line 112 Add it to the dried ...
and many more. Please revise carefully and provide a cautious proof-reading.
2. Considering the choice of the soil. If the title focuses Readers' attention to "expansive soil", the material under study should be somehow representative. The soil used for the experimental part is not really expansive, considering the plasticity index equal to 31.42%. Even in line 92 it is characterized as "weekly expansive".
3. Another problem is related to short curing time. My experience with non-standard composites based on natural soils and/or tailings and additives/binders, shows an important increase of stiffness and strength within first 2-3 months since the production. In your study, the curing time is limited to 1-2 weeks. In my opinion it is dubious and needs experimental verification (validation and not only comments). Considering this curing time you may refer to: 10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022019, 10.1007/s11440-022-01505-9, 10.1109/EFEA56675.2022.10063826. Please make some reservations concerning the universal value of your study based on these examples.
4. I wonder why you do not take a chance to show additional information that may be easily derived from your research, e,g, elastic modulus may be derived from stress-strain curves that you used to establish compressive strength of the material. It is a gratuitous benefit from your research.
5. Concerning conclusions. I have an impression that a fair discussion of potential applicability of your findings is missing. What can be achieved in the laboratory scale, may be difficult to be reached in the real life. the cost of mixing is not negligible and may overcome the benefits of using "sustainable" additives. Please comment.
6. Please supplement the reference list with international sources. So far the non-domestic sources form only 17% of your reference list.
Respected Authors
I made some reference suggestions that do not bring any personal gain to me. Proposed papers are not authored by me nor by colleagues form my University. I just believe that widening of the reference list may attract Readers attention and raise the citing potential of your study.
Sincerely yours
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for the revised file！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments
This paper is current and addresses a relevant topic. Lignin and its derivatives (calcium lignosulphonate) are used to improve low expansive soil. A series of laboratory tests is carried out to compare and analyze the effect before and after improvement with the change of dosage. The summary is clear. The introduction presents sufficient information and includes relevant references. The materials and methods applied are detailed. The results are analyzed and discussed. In conclusion, you should indicate the amount of increase in soil resistance when wood calcium is added.
Specific Comments
Lines 19 and 20 - In the abstract the statement "Lignin and its derivatives compound improved expansive soil have better effect than traditional improvement methods is not clearly demonstrated with the experiments carried out.
Line 162 – Correct the legend in Figure 3 of the liquidity limit.
Line 17 - Suggestion: it is important to show in a figure with Free expansion rate due to flooding over time for different Calcium lignosulfonate Content/(%).
Line 346 – Suggestion: it is important to show the images which led to the observations described in the Table 5.
Lines 406 to 409 - Inform the amount of soil strength increase when wood calcium is added.
. Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for the revised file！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The description of the research status is not comprehensive, and many important references and recent research results are not covered.
2. The author should provide the mineral composition of expansive soil, lignin fiber, and calcium lignosulfonate powder.
3. Is the material dosage based on percentage or mass ratio? What kind of direct shear test is used?
4. It is recommended that the author provide more water stability test data and photos to increase the readability of the article.
5. Is the test sample representative? Has a repeatability test been conducted?
6. The author should specifically discuss the comparison of performance and benefits between the modification methods in this study and traditional modification methods.
7.Although the author explained the modification mechanism from a microscopic perspective, is the modification mechanism based on chemical or physical factors? Does the author delve deeper into this information?
8. The expansive soil studied by the author belongs to weak expansive soil, so can the research results be extended to strong expansive soil?
Overall, the research is biased towards theory, and the practical application value and operational methods need to be further discussed.
Extensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for the revised file！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor:
The authors carefully studied the reviewer's comments and revised the manuscript. In my opinion, this manuscript's quality meets the journal's requirements. I suggest this manuscript be accepted and published in this journal.
Dear Editor:
The authors carefully studied the reviewer's comments and revised the manuscript. In my opinion, this manuscript's quality meets the journal's requirements. I suggest this manuscript be accepted and published in this journal.
Author Response
Please find attached!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Respected Authors
The study was successfully improved, however my main concern about short curing time was not really solved. You refer to work https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.09.001 and they show significant increase of UCS between 14th and 40th day of curing (figure 3).
I'd opt for acceptance in the current form, but some editorial improvements are still required. Reference list is messy and some cited sources cannot be found in search engines.
Sincerely yours
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for the revised file！
In the following research, we will focus on the curing time .I have proofread all the references to make sure I can find them on the website！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The author made appropriate modifications.
Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their suggestions on English writing! The manuscript has completed the grammar proofreading of the entire article, and it will be submitted to the journal's recommended revision agency to complete the English writing revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
