Damage Mode and Energy Consumption Characteristics of Paper-Sludge-Doped Magnesium Chloride Cement Composites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
To reduce the pollution of paper sludge to the environment and overcome the poor water resistance and brittleness of Magnesium Oxychloride Cement (MOC), MOC was modified by adding different dosages of paper sludge. The mechanical properties and damage modes of paper sludge composite MOC materials were studied by uniaxial compression test. The topic of this paper is interesting and the results have the reference significance for similar engineering practice.
The article needs to be minor revised as follows:
1. The last paragraph of the introduction is redundant and it should be improved as concise as possible.
2. Figure 8 on page 7 is not very clear, and it is proposed to give the clear one.
3. The first paragraph of the conclusion should be given a concise summary.
4. Is there an English title for reference 13? It is suggested that this reference be replaced.
5. Two decimal values are not reserved in line 356 on page 10. It is proposed to give the reasonable value.
6. The words whicht lines 402, 405, and 410 on page 12 are incorrect, Suggest the author to give the exact word.
To sum up, it is suggested that the paper will be accepted after the minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the point-by-point reply letter.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General Comment:
I have reviewed the manuscript and believe that significant revisions are necessary before it can be considered for publication. Below, I highlight specific areas of concern and suggestions for improvement.
Introduction Section:
Lines #29-34: References are missing in this section.
In relation to the mention of secondary soil pollution caused by sanitary landfill, please elaborate on how this phenomenon occurs.
Line #40: The abbreviation "MOC" is used without providing its full form. Please specify what MOC stands for in its first mention.
Lines #35-91: While the literature review on paper sludge is comprehensive, the connections between the cited research works are unclear. Rather than merely listing previous studies, it would benefit the paper to clearly explain how each piece of past research relates and contributes to the narrative of this manuscript.
Materials and Methods Section:
Line #111: The explanation of the materials and methodology employed is lacking in detail. A thorough and detailed methodological description is paramount for reproducibility and to provide context to the results and conclusion. This section needs expansion and clarification.
For Table 1 and Table 2, it's unclear where the data originates. Is this information provided by the agent manufacturer? Please specify.
Regarding Figure 1, it's not specified what the blue line represents. I assume it's for paper sludge, but an explicit description within the figure legend or the main text is essential.
General Recommendation:
Substantial revisions, especially in the introduction and methods sections, are imperative. After these revisions are made, I recommend that the manuscript be re-evaluated.
The manuscript employs a straightforward and plain English style, which undoubtedly enhances readability. However, for the academic context, a more formal and scholarly tone may be more fitting. I would recommend the author consider refining the language to align more closely with academic conventions.
Author Response
Please see the point-by-point reply letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Minor editing of English language required
1- Many of the contents mentioned in the introduction lack proper references. In some cases, no reference is even provided. For example, the opening sentences of the introduction "In 2019, there are about 42,000".
2- How to take samples of paper sludge should be described. Is sampling repeatable?
3- What was the purpose of the authors to perform XRD spectra? The interpretation of this analysis is very poorly presented.
4- Naturally, using paper sludge has some disadvantages. Mention a few.
5- How far can the increase in the amount of paper sludge in the structure continue? Optimizing values is very important.
6- From an economic point of view, is it cost-effective to use paper sludge? Is there a reference on this?
7- Compare your research results with other articles in the table.
8- Try to highlight the novelty aspect of the research in the introduction.
Author Response
Please see the point-by-point reply letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The following comments are to be considered while preparing the revised manuscript
1. Line 29: Expand and write the term "t"
2. Line 35: Use the word "researchers" instead of "scholars". The same comment applies for Line 93 as well.
3. Is the referencing style as per the standard journal format? Please check it throughout the manuscript.
4. What is the knowledge gap addressed through the present work? Reading through the introduction section, the reviewer feels difficult to understand the same. Hence, the end of the introduction section can be added with the novelty or need for the present work.
5. Please clarify/elaborate how the data in Table 1 and 2 are obtained?
6. From the Figure 1, the peaks obtained are to be better explained along with their corresponding JCPDS references.
7. Figure 4: For the specimen with 0% paper sludge content, what is the reason for the lag in the initial portion of the stress-strain curve. In other words, why the linearity of the initial portion is not observed.
9. In continuation with the above comment, the strain values represented are too high and may be incorrect? Please clarify how the strain values are computed/calculated.
10. Figure 5 : A marginal reduction in the dry density of the specimen could reduce the compressive strength to a significant extent. This is conceptually wrong. Please clarify.
11. From the failure mode images, it could be understood that the nature of failure is highly brittle and undesirable. Please comment/clarify the same.
12. What is the need for the cyclic tests in the proposed work? From the outcomes, where the proposed material can be deployed. Please clarify.
Author Response
Please see the point-by-point reply letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your revisions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
Minor editing of English language required
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments were addressed.
