Preparation of Ceramsite Using Dehydrated Silt Soil and Its Performance on Compressive Strength of Ceramsite Concrete Block

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the paper has a high quality in presenting how ceramsite is prepared into autoclaved concrete blocks. 

I think adding more descriptions and demonstrations in the captions of figures is needed especially in Figure 3, 4, 5. Error bars can also be added to Figure 2, 4, 5.

Introduction part is too long and should be more concise. Some technologies cited in the introduction should be discussed in the methodology part instead of the introduction part. I think the first three sections need to be reorganized, for intance, some subsections in introduction should be combined with section 2 and 3. Section 2 and 3 can be merged too. 

 

Author Response

1. Error bar has been added.
2. Section 1, 2 and 3 have been reorganization.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors showed preparation of ceramsite using dehydrated silt soil and its performance on compressive strength of ceramsite concrete block. The title accurately reflects the study. The objective is well defined and I have no criticisms regarding the interpretation of results. However, I think that the article is not ready for publication as it stands. The questions are as follows:

1. Before proceeding to describe your experiment, materials and actions, please describe your scientific hypothesis, concepts and the relevant reasoning for choosing the particular modelling approach. This should be accompanied by an overall description of the followed procedure.

2. No mention of hypothesis you were testing or measurable aims of the research.

3. No research questions to support hypothesis?

4. How many times did you repeat in the tests? show error bars and state how these were calculated.

5. Study lacks depth and scientific rigor.

6. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of preparation of ceramsite using dehydrated silt soil and its performance on compressive strength of ceramsite concrete block. Currently, this is not performed in a convincing way. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals.

7. To make the conclusion section more clear, authors are highly encouraged to include the point-by-point findings of this article.

8. The novelty of this work is fair. However, a quick search reveals that this study does not differ significantly from other publications that were published by the authors. The authors are asked to show their original contribution in this field in a more convincing way.

9. If this is an experimental study, I think experimental data should be shown in the corresponding Figure as well as fitting model. How many runs does the experimental procedure consist of ?

10. Please review references format.

Author Response

1. Scientific hypothesis and concepts have been added.
2. Error bar has been added.
3. Introductions have been reorganized.
4. The conclusion part has been modified to point-by-point description.
5. The reference format has been modified.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Some references have been added.
2. The aim of the study has been added.
3. Technical index of soil, cement and PAM has been added.
4. Firing parameters have been added.
5. The number of parallel test blocks have been explained.
6. The unit has been changed from g/500mL to g/L.
7. Figures have been modified, and error bar have been added.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors present an interesting project to create autoclaved concrete blocks and nano-CaCO3 autoclaved concrete blocks using dehydrated loamy soil as a promising approach in construction technology from the point of view of environmental and economic aspects.
There are also the following remarks on the work:
1. The authors did not write a clear purpose of the publication. The formulation of the goal is begun on page 4 line 133, but not completed. This is a weakness of the work.
2. The preliminary stages of preparation for obtaining autoclaved concrete blocks and Nano-CaCO3 autoclaved concrete blocks are considered very thoroughly. More than half of the text of the work is related to the preparation and description of approaches and methods. This makes the work unbalanced.
3. The obtained results cover a basic investigation of Compressive Strength Testing of Blocks. But this is only one parameter from the group of physical-mechanical properties of the resulting concrete blocks. Based on these results alone, the importance of the proposed methodology for obtaining concrete blocks under specific experimental conditions cannot be assessed. Authors should provide additional microstructure study results to substantiate the sought effects. The phase composition is very important to clarify the properties of the resulting concrete blocks. The experimental part should be supplemented with results from microstructural methods.

Author Response

1. The aim of the study has been explained.
2. Section 1, 2 and 3 have been reorganized.

Reviewer 5 Report

In the manuscript, the authors analyzed the effect of flocculation time and flocculant dosage on sludge flocculation and dewatering of a silt soil as a raw material to produce ceramsite for ceramsite concrete blocks. The article topic is intriguing and promising in the area of the environmental protection. In general, I consider that the topic of the research entitled “Preparation of ceramsite using dehydrated silt soil and its performance on compressive strength of ceramsite concrete block” merits being published in the Applied Sciences journal after major revision.

 

1)      The authors should reduce the introduction section.

2)      The authors should include error bars in the Figures where possible, especially in Figure 5.

3)      The compressive strength should be compared to values previously reported in the literature regarding light weight ceramsite concrete.

4)      Substantial number of minor flaws was noticed. Namely, missing space between words, missing references in the text, not finished sentence (line 133), Equation 2 and Table 3 are not written according to template.  In general, the authors should uniform the style of the manuscript according to journal guidelines. Furthermore, the authors should carefully read the manuscript and correct typing mistakes.

Author Response

1. Section 1, 2 and 3 have been reorganized.
2. Error bar has been added.
3. Some references have been added.

Reviewer 6 Report

In the current manuscript Chonggen et al. described the production of ceramsite for ceramsite concrete blocks using dehydrated silt soil. The manuscript was prepared correctly from the substantial point of view. My criticism concerns the introduction part. It looks unfinished...(Page 4 line 133).

 

Additional comments:

 What is the main question addressed by the research?The manuscript describes the production of ceramsite for ceramsite concrete blocks using dehydrated silt soil.

 Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it

address a specific gap in the field?

It is original. The manuscript demonstrates quite substantial contribution in material chemistry.

  What does it add to the subject area compared with other published

material?

The authors should add some references to literature in the Introduction (especially in lines 32-42) and try to compare their results with bibliography and comment their advantages.

 What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the

methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The authors should compare their methodology with bibliography and comment their improvements.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented

and do they address the main question posed?

Yes.

 Are the references appropriate?

Yes.

    Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Page 5 line 176 – Incorrect number of Table (should be ‘Table 3’). Page 9, Figures 6-8 - what do the letters a, b, c mean?

 

Author Response

1. The aim of the study has been explained.
2. Section 1, 2 and 3 have been reorganized.
3. Some references have been added.
4. The conclusion part is modified to point-by-point description.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

• The quality of the papers has been improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments after corrections

Reviewer 4 Report

Improved version of the manuscript

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my comments on the previous version of this manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript has been improved substantially and is acceptable for publication in Sustainability Journal.