Multicriteria Decision-Making Tools for the Selection of Biomasses as Supplementary Cementitious Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has made a good attempt to understand "Going beyond the concrete properties with multi-criteria decision-making tools for the selection of biomasses as  supplementary cementitious material". However, a few comments are mentioned below:

1. Abstract is not clear, it should be revised

2. Results and outcome details are missing in the abstract.

3. What is the objective to use biomasses as an admixture in cement?

4. Lots of research work carried out on Biomass, Author should highlight how this article is unique & how biomass concepts are introduced in the cementation product as an admixture.

5.  Wrong way of representation of the journal article " The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the AHP 140 methodology used in the paper. Section 3 discusses the main results of the study. Finally, 141 section 4 presents some conclusions and future research directions. These writing styles applicable in the book or thesis not in the journal articles delete. it.

6.  three biomasses collection details and engineering properties are missing.

7.  Table 3. Table A. Is it primary data or secondary data, reference is missing

8. I am unable to find any experimental proof on Cane Bagasse, Coffee husk, Rice husk, Corn cob, or Palm rachis.

9. Why rice husk values are very high in Table 3

10. Figure 2 pictures are not clear

11. Output of the results and significance of outcome are missing

12. Mechanism of biomass admixture details are missing. 

 

 

 

Language should be improved 

Author Response

General comment:

“The author has made a good attempt to understand "Going beyond the concrete properties with multi-criteria decision-making tools for the selection of biomasses as supplementary cementitious material". However, a few comments are mentioned below:”

 

Thanks for your positive assessment of our paper. We hope the revised version of the manuscript fixes the weak points identified in your review.

 

Comment 1. “Abstract is not clear, it should be revised”

Response

Thanks to the reviewer for this remark. 

Action

We reviewed some examples in the Sustainability journal, which allowed us to adjust our research abstract, specifying the goal, the results, and the contributions of our work.

 

Comment 2. “Results and outcome details are missing in the abstract”.

Response

Thanks for this remark. We agree it was necessary to specify the results and outputs in the abstract.

 

Action

As we replied to the first comment, we described the results and contributions of the research in the abstract. We used more than half of the abstract to explain these results.

 

Comment 3. ”What is the objective to use biomasses as an admixture in cement?”

 

Response

Thanks to the referee’s question, we wonder if our approach to the use of biomass ashes was not clear in the previous version of the manuscript. From the very beginning of the paper, we state the environmental benefits of using biomass ashes as supplementary cementitious materials, both for the cement/concrete industry and for the agroindustry. We are not claiming these benefits and take them for granted. Alternatively, we focus on the selection of biomasses to be used in the production of SCM.

 

Action

• We have not made a specific change in the manuscript due to this remark but believe that the new version of the abstract clarifies both the benefits of using biomass ashes as SCM.
• We, however, believe that the new references to the environmental challenges faces by the cement and concrete industry better frame the paper and answer the referee’s comment (see [2,6] references).

  

Comment 4. “Lots of research work carried out on Biomass, Author should highlight how this article is unique & how biomass concepts are introduced in the cementation product as an admixture”

Response

We agree that several studies have addressed the use of biomasses as alternative materials in concrete production.  However, most of them, if not all, ignore the evaluation of the combustion and production process at a national level. We, therefore, include these two additional criteria in the selection of a supplementary cementitious material using a multicriteria decision making tool and validate the methodology using Colomban data.

 

Action

We added a clear statement of the contributions of the paper in the closing sentences of the introduction.

 

Comment 5. ”Wrong way of representation of the journal article " The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the AHP 140 methodology used in the paper. Section 3 discusses the main results of the study. Finally, section 4 presents some conclusions and future research directions. These writing styles applicable in the book or thesis not in the journal articles delete. it.”

 

Response

Thanks for this remark. The removal of this excerpt leave space for introducing of the constitutions of the paper.

 

Action

We deleted this excerpt as suggested by the reviewer.

 

Comment 6. “three biomasses collection details and engineering properties are missing”

 Response

 As stated in the answer to Comment 4, the paper's contribution is the use of multicriteria decision-making tools for selecting biomasses as SCM. Therefore, the collection of engineering properties of the concrete produced with the biomasses was a consequence of the results of this paper and not input data for the described methodology. Nonetheless, the properties of the biomasses used as input data are defined in a Table that was missing in the previous version of the manuscript.   

 

Actions

• We added a clear statement at the end of the discussion section clarifying that properties of the concretes including the selected biomasses will be the next step in the research once the biomasses have been selected.
• A new table describing the properties analyzed in the MCDM methodology has been added (Table A). The sources for the values of these properties for the five biomasses considered are given in Table A.1 (in the appendix). As stated in the opening paragraph of Section 3, bananas, wood, and coconut were discarded as possible alternatives because of the unavailability of data.

 

Comment 7.”Table 3. Table A. Is it primary data or secondary data, reference is missing”

Response

 Thanks to the referee for this remark, we could clarify the sources for these data.

 

Action

We specified in page 5, before this table (Table B in the adjusted manuscript), we got these data from the literature (refer to Table A 1 to see the sources we consulted to get these values, as we stated in comment 6).   

 

Comment 8.  “I am unable to find any experimental proof on Cane Bagasse, Coffee husk, Rice husk, Corn cob, or Palm rachis”

Response

 As stated in the answer to Comments 4 and 6, the paper's contribution is using multicriteria decision-making tools for selecting biomasses as SCM without resorting to laboratory tests. We state this clearly in the last paragraph of the conclusions under the future research possibilities and indicate how this values would be included in the proposed methodology.  However, we added a sentence indicating that the collection of such properties for the selected biomasses is a consequence of the results of the paper.  

 

Action

A new sentence indicating that the collection of experimental data for Cane Bagasse, Coffee husk, Rice husk as SCM is a result of the study and not an input. Please refer to the last sentence of the discussion section.

Comment 9. “Why rice husk values are very high in Table 3”

Response

 Thanks for this remark.

 Action

We double-checked the data for % Ash, density and % Silica in ash for rice husk. As you can see in Table A 1, in the first and second cases, we took the value reported by [57] and [63], respectively. For the % Silica in ash, we averaged out the data reported by [58,59,61,62].  

 

Comment 10. “Figure 2 pictures are not clear”

Response

Thanks for this remark, clearly, Figure 2 should be improved.

Action

In the revised version of the manuscript, the four subgraphs of (former) Figure 2 were split into four different figures and their presentation has been improved. Including different markers to distinguish between different decision makers as suggested by the Reviewer 2.

 

Comment 10a. “Output of the results and significance of outcome are missing”

Response

Thanks to the referee’s remark we realized that the baseline results were not clearly discussed at the very beginning of the corresponding section (former Section 3.2 Biomass selection and sensitivity analysis)  

 

Actions

• For a better discussion, we decided to split this section into two subsections: Section 3.2 Biomass selection and Section 3.3. Sensitivity analysis
• The (baseline) output of the results are now clearly stated in the new section 3.2 Biomass selection. This section has been completely rewritten.

 

Comment 10b. “Output of the results and significance of outcome are missing”

Response

Since the main methodology is a multicriteria decision making tool, the significance of the outcome is mainly evaluated through the evaluation of the consistency of the comparison matrix, the robustness of the results, and the level of consensus of the decision makers.   

 

Actions

• First, in the revised version of the manuscript, we now include the procedure used to ensure consistency evaluation of individual DM judgments (see the new first paragraph of section 3.1).
• Second, we now emphasize on the role of Sammon’s maps to depict the level of consensus of the DMs. We believe that the new introduction of Sammon’s maps, the new version of the corresponding figures (now in separated form) and the associated discussion addressed this important concern  of the reviewer, (see the new version of Section 3.1 that was almost entirely rewritten).
• Third, to evaluate the robustness of the decision we used SuperDecisions’ sensibility analysis and different scenarios with different DMs weights. We believe that the separated discussion of this component of the methodology (see new Section 3.3) better addresses the significance concern of the referee.

 

Comment 11. “Mechanism of biomass admixture details are missing.”

Response

As a matter of fact, these details are not given in the papers as the MCDM methodology aims at not including mechanical or physicochemical test of the concrete in the selection of the SCM at a  at a national preliminary (that is intended usage of the proposed methodology).  However, we added a clear statement that this is the next step in the process.

Actions

• In the previous version of the manuscript, it seems as if an important table was removed by the editorial system (Table A) . This table includes the definition of the subcriteria used in the selection of the SCM. We added the missing table, and it is now clear that concrete mixes properties were not used as data for the MCDM methodology.
• We added a clear statement of this fact at the closing sentence of the discussion section.

Comment 12. “Language should be improved “

Response"

Since we are not English native speakers, we are conscient of this handicap in the preparation of our manuscript.  We have taken several actions to improve the readability of the new version of the manuscript and hope they solve this issue.

 

Actions

• First, we have used Grammarly (an Artificial-intelligence-powered writing tool)) in the preparation of the revised version of the manuscript.
• Second, we asked a colleague working on an English-Speaking country to proofread the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article uses Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to screen the most suitable biological ash for the production of auxiliary cementitious materials (SCM). On the basis of traditional screening standards, biomass production and transportation are added, and rich experimental data is obtained. The screened results have high scientific significance. This is a very interesting topic that can inspire us with more ideas. I suggest publishing this paper after refining the following questions:

·         In the introduction section of 1, please use numbers or charts to highlight the superiority of your research project.

·         Please delete the introduction about the content of each chapter in this article.

·         Please briefly introduce why biomass can be applied to SCM. For example, what properties of sugarcane bagasse make it have the potential for application in SCM.

·         In Figure 2 of Chapter 3.1 Analysis of expert judgments, please provide a specific explanation of the reasons for point offset, such as DM1 and DM8 in Figure a and DM1 and DM3 in Figure b.

·         In Chapter 2, Materials and Methods, please summarize the four stages in the form of a graph

·         In the process of evaluating other scenarios in 3.2.1, please provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the numerical deviation

·         Please briefly introduce why biomass can be applied to SCM. For example, what properties of sugarcane bagasse make it have the potential for application in SCM.

Keep simplify some long sentences

Author Response

Thanks to the referee for the positive assessment of our paper. We included his/her remarks in the revised version of the manuscript and believe it has been greatly improved..

Comment 1. “In the introduction section of 1, please use numbers or charts to highlight the superiority of your research project”.

Response

Thanks to the referee for this recommendation. We change the introduction accordingly.

Action

We added a closing sentence at the introduction highlighting the main contribution of our approach (see the new last sentence of the Introduction Section)

Comment 2. “Please delete the introduction about the content of each chapter in this article”.

Response

Thanks for this remark. The removal of this excerpt leave space for introducing the contributions of the paper.

Action

We deleted this excerpt as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 3. “Please briefly introduce why biomass can be applied to SCM. For example, what properties of sugarcane bagasse make it have the potential for application in SCM”

Response

Thanks to the referee for this remark. It is important to highlight the mechanical and physical benefits of using SCM from biomass ashes.

Action

We include two references to papers highlighting the improvements of the properties of the concrete with the use of SCM. 

 

Comment 4. “In Figure 2 of Chapter 3.1 Analysis of expert judgments, please provide a specific explanation of the reasons for point offset, such as DM1 and DM8 in Figure a and DM1 and DM3 in Figure b”.

Response

Thanks to the referee for this remark. We agree that an explanation of the differences between the DM judgments are needed.

Action

In the revised version of the manuscript, we improved the presentation of Sammon’s maps for  the similarities and disagreements on expert judgments. See the discusion of (new) figures 3-6.   

Comment 5. “In Chapter 2, Materials and Methods, please summarize the four stages in the form of a graph”

Response

Thanks to the referee for this remark. A Figure is a good option to summarize the methodology.

Action

A new Figure (Figure 1 in the revised manuscript) has been added.  This figure depicts the methodology detailing the tools, data sources, and software used in each one of its phases.

Comment 6. “In the process of evaluating other scenarios in 3.2.1, please provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the numerical deviation”

Response

Thank you for your remark. We analyzed deeper these outcomes scenarios more.

Action

We added a paragraph after Table D (beginning of page 13) to explain those results (see text in blue).

Comment 7. (Comments on the Quality of English Language ) “Keep simplify some long sentences.”

Response

We have taken several actions to improve the readability of the new version of the manuscript and hope they solve this issue.

Actions

• First, we have used Grammarly (an Artificial-intelligence-powered writing tool)) in the preparation of the revised version of the manuscript.
• Second, we asked a colleague working on an English-Speaking country to proofread the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors should revise the title and abstract of the manuscript. 

The authors should improve the quality of the figures.

• The manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner.

• The cited references are not recent publications (within the last 5 years).

• The manuscript is scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis.

• The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and easy to interpret and understand.

• The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1. “Authors should revise the title and abstract of the manuscript.”

Response: In accordance with your remark and those of the other two reviewers the title of the paper has been shortened to be clearer and to better reflect the objectives of the paper, and we also revised our research abstract, as other of the reviewers suggested to us.

Action:

• The title of the paper now reads: “Multi-criteria decision-making tools for the selection of biomasses as supplementary cementitious materials”.
• Regarding to the abstract, we reviewed some examples in the Sustainability journal, which allowed us to adjust the paper abstract, specifying the goal, the results, and the contributions of our work.

 

Comment 2. “The authors should improve the quality of the figures.”

Response

Thank you for your remark. We both acknowledge the need to modify the previous Figure 2 and Figure 4.

Action

• Regarding to former Figure 2, the four subgraphs of this figure were split into four different figures ( figures 2-5 in the adjusted manuscript) and their presentation has been improved. We also added a brief explanation of the principle and objective behind the use of Sammon's Maps in the proposed methodology. See the new text in blue in section 3.1 Analysis of expert judgments.
• Regarding to former Figure 4, the three subgraphs of this figure were split into three different figures (figures 7-9 in the adjusted manuscript), we put axis labels and improved the figures sharpness.    

Comment 3. “The cited references are not recent publications (within the last 5 years).”

Response

Thanks to this comment, we made another search looking for recent research.

Action

• We included five new recent works [1,2,4,6,7] from 2021, 2018, 2023, 2021, and 2019, respectively, to replace some references of the former paper. We also documented another paper [22] in the Introduction section (see text in blue in page 2).
• We kept some references that are older than five years ago but support our methodological proposal and are the methodological support of AHP, such as [16], [28], and [30].

Reviewer 4 Report

The article publishes results about the study for concrete properties after use of biomasses as supplementary cementitious materials. At the end of the publication, the biomaterial that is most suitable for use according to the research is indicated. The authors reach up to 61 literary sources related to this subject. I think that the authors should pay attention to some things, especially regarding the layout:

-   The title doesn't seem well structured, I suggest it be dropped „Going beyond “, and stay alone “Concrete properties with multi-criteria decision-making tools for the selection of biomasses as supplementary cementitious materials ”;

-   In point 3, line 195, the system clearly does not detect a reference to the literary source, the same error is also observed on line 199 and 225 and in another place.

-   The graphs in Fig. 2 are not read well, I think that the inscriptions near the points should be removed and the points should be replaced with different markers to distinguish them when printed in gray scale;

-  Along the abscissa and ordinate axes of the graphs in Fig. 2 are the values of the experiment factors. However, the relationship between the coding of the invoices and natural quantities has not been clarified; Also, wasps don't have labels.

- From the graphs in Fig. 4 nothing is read, there are no axis labels, also the names of sub-points a), b) and c) should be included in the name of the figure.

Author Response

Comment 1. “The title doesn't seem well structured, I suggest it be dropped „Going beyond “, and stay alone “Concrete properties with multi-criteria decision-making tools for the selection of biomasses as supplementary cementitious materials ”

Response:

In accordance with your remark and those of the other two reviewers the title of the paper has been shortened to be clearer and to better reflect the objectives of the paper. Based on your suggestion we even dropped the five initial words of the paper.

Action:

The title of the paper now reads: “Multi-criteria decision-making tools for the selection of biomasses as supplementary cementitious materials.”

Comment 2. “In point 3, line 195, the system clearly does not detect a reference to the literary source, the same error is also observed on line 199 and 225 and in another place”

Response

Thanks for the referee for this remark, and please apologize to us for this mistake.

Actions

• We corrected the missing references.

• It seems as if the final version of the system removed an important table from the previous version of the manuscript we added it and replaced it at discussion (that was formerly in line 199, page 3).

Comment 3. “The graphs in Fig. 2 are not read well, I think that the inscriptions near the points should be removed and the points should be replaced with different markers to distinguish them when printed in gray scale”

Response

Thanks to the reviewer  for this remark. The quality of Figure 2 when printed deserved a revision.

Action

In the revised version of the manuscript, we included different markers to distinguish between different decision makers as suggested. In the point, we only kept the mark for the group.

Comment 4. “Along the abscissa and ordinate axes of the graphs in Fig. 2 are the values of the experiment factors. However, the relationship between the coding of the invoices and natural quantities has not been clarified; Also, wasps don't have labels "

Response

Thanks to the reviewer for this remark. We realized that a clearer explanation of Sammon’s maps was missing. Moreover, we agree that the original version of the figures did not allow a clear reading of the results.

Actions

We added a brief explanation of the principle and objective behind the use of Sammon's Maps in the proposed methodology. See the new text in blue in section 3.1 Analysis of expert judgments.

In the revised version of the manuscript, the four subgraphs of (former) Figure 2 were split into four different figures and their presentation has been improved.

Comment 5.  From the graphs in Fig. 4 nothing is read, there are no axis labels, also the names of sub-points a), b) and c) should be included in the name of the figure.

Response

Thank you for this remark. We are in agreement that we should make changes to the former Figure 4.

Action

The three subgraphs of this figure were split into three different figures (figures 8-10 in the adjusted manuscript), we put axis labels and improved the sharpness and quality of the figures.