Properties of Concrete Reinforced with a Basalt Fiber Microwave-Absorbing Shielding Layer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented a study on basalt fiber reinforced microwave absorbing concrete shielding layer. In general, the manuscript is well-written. However, there are some technical issues which need to be addressed. I, therefore, minor revision.
1. The beginning of the Abstract is quite abrupt. Modify it. State the main objective of the study in the very first line and then discuss the plot of the work followed by other discussions.
2. Line 29: Grammatical issue.
3. Line 41: Referencing issue. It should be Guo et al. [10]. Same for line no. 44 and other.
4. Line 69: Incomplete.
5. Introduction: The research gap is not properly identified. No strong literature review and previous findings have been presented.
6. Mention the parametric configuration of 3cm thick microwave shielding layer.
7. Line 205: the specimens were dried in an oven for 12 hours until reaching a constant weight. Then why for 12 hours or until reaching a constant weight? Follow any standards or random? Similar question for th e statement given in lines 224-225.
8. Line 228: Write as Eq. (2).
9. Source of basalt fiber should be mentioned.
10. Table 6: Alignment problem.
11. Details of standards/references follows during cube casting are to be mentioned.
12. Practical application from the standpoint of civil engineering should be mentioned in line with the findings of the study.
13. In the introduction section, elaborate on the guiding significance of the research results for practical applications.
14. The conclusion section is not properly written. Plz state the major findings of the study and limitations. Also, discuss the future scope of the study.
15. Check the following para how to apply grammatical correction: Use the past tense to report what happened in the past: what the authors did, what someone reported, what happened in an experiment, and so on. Use the present tense to express general truths, such as conclusions (drawn by the authors or by others) and facts not limited by time (including information about what the paper does or covers). Reserve the future tense for perspectives: what will be done in the coming months or years.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor corrections are required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Basalt Fiber Reinforced Microwave Absorbing Concrete Shielding Layer." We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions, and we have made the following revisions to address them:
Point 1. The beginning of the Abstract is quite abrupt. Modify it. State the main objective of the study in the very first line and then discuss the plot of the work followed by other discussions.
Response 1 ：In the revised version, we have modified the Abstract to state the main objective of the study in the very first line. We then proceeded to discuss the methodology, results, and the significance of our research. This modification has improved the flow and clarity of the Abstract, providing a more comprehensive overview of our work.
Point 2. Line 29: Grammatical issue.
Response2 ：Line 29: We have addressed the grammatical issue in Line 29 as well as other grammar-related problems throughout the manuscript. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we appreciate your careful review of our work.
Point 3. Line 41: Referencing issue. It should be Guo et al. [10]. Same for line no. 44 and other.
Response 3 ：Line 41: We have revised the referencing format as per your suggestion. The references in Line 41 now correctly cite Guo et al. [10], and the same revision has been made for Line 44 and other relevant references. Thank you for pointing out this issue, and we appreciate your attention to detail in reviewing our manuscript.
Point 4. Line 69: Incomplete.
Response 4 ：Line 69: We have addressed the issue in Line 69 and provided a more complete and comprehensive statement as per your suggestion. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we appreciate your valuable feedback in improving the clarity and completeness of our manuscript.
Point 5. Introduction: The research gap is not properly identified. No strong literature review and previous findings have been presented.
Response 5: We have addressed the concern regarding the identification of the research gap in the Introduction. In the revised version, we have reintroduced the research gap in the third section and provided a stronger literature review along with a summary of previous findings. These additions aim to enhance the clarity and context of our study by highlighting the existing knowledge gap and building upon previous research. Thank you for pointing out this aspect, and we appreciate your valuable input in improving the quality of our manuscript.
Point 6. Mention the parametric configuration of 3cm thick microwave shielding layer.
Response 6. We have included the parametric configuration of the 3cm thick microwave shielding layer in our manuscript. Specifically, we have mentioned two types of materials used for the microwave shielding layer: 1) galvanized iron wire mesh, and 2) the addition of magnetite and hematite in the concrete material. The details regarding the specimen materials and preparation methods have been provided in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. These additions aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the composition and preparation of the microwave shielding layer. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we appreciate your valuable feedback in improving the completeness of our manuscript.
Point 7. Line 205: the specimens were dried in an oven for 12 hours until reaching a constant weight. Then why for 12 hours or until reaching a constant weight? Follow any standards or random? Similar question for th e statement given in lines 224-225.
Response 7: Line 205: Thank you for raising the question regarding the drying time and reaching a constant weight in line 205. The drying time of 12 hours and reaching a constant weight were based on the experimental method specified in the Chinese testing standard "Testing Methods of Cement and Concrete for Highway Engineering (JTG 3420—2020), T 0567—2005" for the abrasion resistance test. This standard provides specific guidelines for the drying process to ensure the specimens reach a constant weight, which is necessary for accurate measurement and comparison of the results.
Regarding the statement in lines 224-225, we have further refined the experimental procedure to provide more detailed information. These additions aim to enhance the clarity and reproducibility of the experimental process. Thank you for bringing up these points, and we appreciate your valuable feedback in improving the methodological aspects of our manuscript.
Point 8. Line 228: Write as Eq. (2).
Response 8: Line 228: We have revised the sentence to state "Eq. (2)".
Point 9. Source of basalt fiber should be mentioned.
Response 9: We have included the source of the basalt fiber in the manuscript. The basalt fiber utilized in this study were provided by Shanghai Chenqi Chemical Technology Co., Ltd.
Point 10. Table 6: Alignment problem.
Response 10: Table 6: We have addressed the alignment problem in the table 6.
Point 11. Details of standards/references follows during cube casting are to be mentioned.
Response 11: Thank you for your suggestion regarding mentioning the details of standards/references during cube casting. In line 132, we have indicated the reference for the testing procedure as JTG 3420-2020, which is the "Testing Methods of Cement and Concrete for Highway Engineering" published by the Ministry of Communications of the People's Republic of China. This standard provides comprehensive guidelines and specifications for cube casting in highway engineering.
Point 12. Practical application from the standpoint of civil engineering should be mentioned in line with the findings of the study.
Response 12: Thank you for your comment regarding the practical application of our study from the standpoint of civil engineering. We agree that discussing the practical implications of our research is important to highlight its relevance and potential impact.In response to your suggestion, we have included a discussion on the practical application of our study in the concluding section of the introduction.
Point 13. In the introduction section, elaborate on the guiding significance of the research results for practical applications.
Response 13: Thank you for your suggestion regarding elaborating on the guiding significance of the research results for practical applications in the introduction section. We appreciate your feedback and have made the necessary revisions to address this point.
In the concluding part of the introduction, we have provided an explicit statement on the research significance. We emphasize that this study serves as a foundation for expediting the removal of ice and snow from concrete roads and promoting the widespread adoption of Microwave-Assisted Concrete (MAC) pavements. Additionally, we highlight that the findings of this research can serve as a valuable reference for future studies on microwave-absorbing cement materials for road surfaces and enhancing the de-icing effectiveness of pavements.
By incorporating this information, we aim to emphasize the practical implications and guiding significance of our research results for real-world applications in the field of civil engineering. We thank you for your valuable input.
Point 14. The conclusion section is not properly written. Plz state the major findings of the study and limitations. Also, discuss the future scope of the study.
Response 14: In the conclusion section, we have now included a discussion on the major findings of the study. We highlight the effectiveness of Microwave-Assisted Concrete (MAC) pavements in facilitating the removal of ice and snow from road surfaces. Additionally, we emphasize the potential benefits of using MAC pavements in terms of improved safety and reduced maintenance costs.
Furthermore, we have addressed the limitations of our study. Specifically, we discuss the need to further investigate the bonding properties of basalt fibers and cement concrete under low-temperature conditions. We also acknowledge that there is currently a lack of established evaluation methods and systems for assessing the performance of MAC pavements. These limitations provide opportunities for future research in this field.
Moreover, we have included a discussion on the future scope of the study. We suggest that future research should focus on conducting scientific and systematic studies on microwave de-icing technology by considering climate conditions and economic factors. This would contribute to the development of a comprehensive evaluation framework for the practical application of MAC pavements.
We appreciate your valuable input, and we believe that these revisions enhance the conclusion section of our manuscript by summarizing the major findings, addressing limitations, and outlining the potential for future research.
Point 15. Check the following para how to apply grammatical correction: Use the past tense to report what happened in the past: what the authors did, what someone reported, what happened in an experiment, and so on. Use the present tense to express general truths, such as conclusions (drawn by the authors or by others) and facts not limited by time (including information about what the paper does or covers). Reserve the future tense for perspectives: what will be done in the coming months or years.
Response 15: Thank you for your comment regarding the appropriate use of tenses in our manuscript. We appreciate your guidance on this matter.
Upon reviewing the language of the paper, we have taken the necessary steps to apply grammatical corrections and ensure the proper use of tenses throughout the manuscript. To ensure accuracy and fluency, we have sought the assistance of a native English speaker proficient in scientific writing from MDPI to make the required language revisions.
By addressing this issue, we strive to improve the overall clarity and readability of our manuscript. We thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we believe that these revisions enhance the quality of our paper.
Finally, Thank you again for your valuable comments. Wish everything goes well with your work!
With kind regards, on behalf of all authors, Best regards,
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for your attempts for presenting this valuable work. There still exist some essential issues as follow:
•The grammatical points should be checked and revised by native speaker.
• The keywords should be placed based on importance.
• The results should be quantified in the abstract.
• The history of research should be expressed chronologically.
• The failure mode of samples should be presented.
• The quality of figures is not suitable like figure 6.
• Please explain more about mix design of samples.
• The limitations of this work should be presented in the manuscript.
• The conclusion section is not well-written. It needs to be re-written conceptually with regarding to findings of this research.
• The recommendation section should be added to the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Language•The grammatical points should be checked and revised by native speaker.
Author Response
Dear reviews.
Thank you for your critical comments and thoughtful suggestions! All your comments are very important. We have done considerable revision to the original manuscript; the replies and corrections are as follows:
Point 1. The grammatical points should be checked and revised by native speaker.
Response 1 ：Thank you for your comment regarding the grammatical points in our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of ensuring grammatical accuracy in our paper.
To address this concern, we have taken the necessary steps to have a native English speaker from MDPI review and revise the language issues in our manuscript. Their expertise in English grammar and scientific writing will help us improve the quality and clarity of our paper.
Point 2. The keywords should be placed based on importance.
Response 2：Thank you for your comment regarding the placement of keywords in our abstract. We appreciate your suggestion and understand the importance of organizing keywords based on their significance. In response to your feedback, we have revised the placement of keywords in our abstract, ensuring that they are arranged based on their importance. By repositioning the keywords, we aim to provide a clear and concise representation of the main themes and topics covered in our paper.
Point 3. The results should be quantified in the abstract.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment regarding the quantification of results in our abstract. We appreciate your suggestion and understand the importance of providing specific numerical information to support our findings. In response to your feedback, we have quantified the experimental results in our abstract as per the requirement. By including specific measurements and statistics, we aim to provide a more precise and informative summary of our research outcomes.
Point 4. The history of research should be expressed chronologically.
Response 4：Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the chronological expression of the research history. We appreciate your suggestion and have made the necessary adjustments to reorganize the historical context in a chronological order.In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and restructured the section on research history to present the information in a clear and sequential manner. By providing a chronological account of the research background, we aim to enhance the understanding of the development and progression of the field.
Point 5. The failure mode of samples should be presented.
Response 5 ：Thank you for highlighting the importance of presenting the failure mode of the samples. We sincerely apologize for the oversight in not capturing the necessary photographs during the experiment for that particular specimen.
In response to your comment, we understand the significance of including the experimental photos to provide a comprehensive analysis of the failure mode. We are committed to rectifying this issue and ensuring the completeness of our research. However, it should be noted that reproducing the specimen and capturing the experimental photos will require a time frame of approximately 30 days. We will need to seek approval from the editor for the additional time needed.
Once again, we apologize for any inconvenience caused by this omission and appreciate your understanding. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving the thoroughness of our study. Thank you for your patience and consideration in this matter.
Point 6. The quality of figures is not suitable like figure 6.
Response 6 ：Thank you for bringing to our attention the concern regarding the quality of the figures, particularly Figure 6. We have taken immediate action to address this issue and have made the necessary changes to ensure that the figures meet the publication requirements in terms of resolution and quality. In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed all the figures in the manuscript and have made the appropriate adjustments to enhance their clarity and readability. The revised figures now adhere to the recommended resolution standards, ensuring that the visual information can be effectively conveyed to the readers.
Point 7. Please explain more about mix design of samples.
Response 7 ：we have provided a more detailed explanation of the mix design and the methodology employed in the fabrication of the samples. This includes information on the composition of the materials used, the proportions, and any specific procedures or techniques implemented during the mixing process. We believe that the additional information provided in Section 2.2 will offer a comprehensive understanding of the mix design and enable readers to replicate the experiments accurately. We appreciate your valuable input, which has allowed us to enhance the clarity and completeness of our research. Thank you for your attention to detail, and we hope that the revised section adequately addresses your query.
Point 8. The limitations of this work should be presented in the manuscript.
Response 8 ：we have acknowledged that one of the limitations of our research is that the fabricated specimens were tested under ambient temperature conditions. We have highlighted the need for further investigation to determine the performance and bond strength of the specimens under extreme low-temperature conditions. By including this information in the conclusion, we aim to provide a transparent assessment of the scope and potential constraints of our study. We appreciate your valuable input, which has allowed us to enhance the clarity and completeness of our research. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we believe that the revised manuscript now adequately addresses the limitations of our work.
Point 9. The conclusion section is not well-written. It needs to be re-written conceptually with regarding to findings of this research.
Response 9 ：Thank you for your comment regarding the conclusion section of our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and have carefully re-written the conclusion to better align with the conceptual framework and findings of our research. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the conclusion to provide a more comprehensive and concise summary of our research results and key findings. We have ensured that the conclusion accurately reflects the main contributions and implications of our study, emphasizing the significance of our findings in the broader context of the field. By addressing your comment, we believe that the revised conclusion section now effectively communicates the core outcomes of our research, contributing to a more cohesive and impactful manuscript. We appreciate your valuable input, which has allowed us to improve the clarity and coherence of our research.
Point 10. The recommendation section should be added to the manuscript.
Response 10 ： We appreciate your suggestion. Based on your recommendation, we have included the recommendation for using magnetite sand as a shielding layer material and incorporating 0.2% volume fraction of basalt fibers to enhance the mechanical strength and durability of the pavement, and put the recommendation section into the conclusion.We believe that this addition further enhances the practicality and applicability of our research. We sincerely appreciate your valuable input, and we will continue to improve and refine our study.
Finally, thank you again for your valuable comments. Wish everything goes well with your work!
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDo all the changes highlighted in the attached paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Basalt Fiber Reinforced Microwave Absorbing Concrete Shielding Layer." We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions, and we have made the following revisions to address them:
Point 1. Please replace this title by properties of concrete reinforced with basalt fiber microwave-absorbing shielding layer.
Response 1: The title of the paper has been revised accordingly. Thank you for your suggestion.
Point 2. Please rephrase these sentences.
Response 2: Thank you for your input. I have already rewritten the introduction part of the summary
Point 3.: Please add part of the experimental as , percentages add, tests.
Response 3: I have included specific experimental results, percentages, and testing methods in the summary section.
Point 4. Please show the percentages of improvement.
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. I have supplemented the experimental results of different materials and structures in the summary section, as well as provided comparative data for different outcomes.
Point 5. This is a profound conclusion.
Response 5: For the meaning at the end of the summary I optimize it.
Point 6. Please depend on one style of writing the references
Response 6: For the citation format of references, I have made changes based on the format used in the "Sustainability" journal. Thank you for your suggestions.
Point 7. Please re-writing the significance of the research.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In summary, this study aims to provide an overview of the research purpose, methods, and results. It also aims to organize existing research in the field. Additionally, I will briefly describe the gaps between this study and previous research, as well as the practical significance of this study.
Point 8. Please compare with specifications of used cement.
Response 8: For the cement concrete parameters in Table I, I used to check them. And I checked the cement parameters of P.C.32.5 by comparing it with the specimens used in the past.
Point 9. Please add plates showing the preparation and testing of samples.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your advice on my thesis. I have included the specific way of preparing different specimens in the second part ' Materials and Methods'. In addition, I have described the testing methods for non-standard tests of the specimens which can be found in section 2.3. Finally, thank you very much for your suggestion.
Point 10. Please cite with references related to topic.
Response 10: I have cited relevant papers that are related to the topic of this section. Alkali-activated materials (AAMs), an alternative to Portland cement, have demon-strated favorable wear performance compared to Portland cement[35]. Ahmed et al.[36] discovered that an optimal content of 1% by weight of cement demonstrated improved abrasion resistance and durability, and met the main.
- Shagnay, S.; Velasco, F.; del Campo, A.; Torres-Carrasco, M., Wear behavior in pastes of alkali-activated materials: Influence of precursor and alkali solution. Tribology International 2020, 147.
- Ahmed, N. Y.; Alkhafaji, F. F., Enhancements and mechanisms of nano alumina (Al2O3) on wear resistance and microstructure characteristics of concrete pavement. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2020, 871, 012001 (11 pp.)-012001 (11 pp.).requirements of con-crete highway pavement, including strength and workability.
Point 11. Please cite with references related to topic.
Response 11: I have cited relevant papers that are related to the topic of this section. Cui et al. [38] investigated the impact of material composition, porosity, and solute factors on the water absorption of soft rock in their study. Zhang et al. [39] examined the influence of silica fume admixture on the water absorption of hydrophobic concrete.
- Cui, G.; Zhou, C.; Liu, Z., Prediction Method of Water Absorption of Soft Rock Considering the Influence of Composition, Porosity, and Solute Quantitatively. Applied Sciences-Basel 2022, 12, (12).
- Zhang, C.; Zhang, S.; Yu, J.; Kong, X., Water absorption behavior of hydrophobized concrete using silane emulsion as admixture. Cement and Concrete Research 2022, 154.
Finally, Thank you again for your valuable comments. Wish everything goes well with your work!
With kind regards, on behalf of all authors, Best regards,
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has enough quality to be accepted for publication after minor revisions. The topic evaluated is sufficiently innovative, and the methodology used to carry out this study is generally acceptable. The results and analysis are relevant, and the conclusions advance the area's knowledge regarding the mechanical and de-icing efficiency of absorbing concrete shielding layers when using microwave heating. The article relates well to the topics of this Journal. Plagiarism or republication problems were not found. The article's organization is acceptable, although the quality of the Figures should be improved to facilitate the reading of the paper. The results were adequately discussed and analyzed. Written English quality should be slightly improved.
The following questions or suggestions should be addressed in the revised paper:
- Several Figures/Graphics should be revised to improve their resolution. Please try to use vector graphics to improve the quality.
- The 3D graphics used in Figures 6 and 7 are difficult to read. I suggest using 2D bar graphics with different colours for each material studied.
- The colour scheme used throughout the paper is difficult to follow. Please be consistent in the different Figures.
- The paper correctly stated that the heating time was higher in the outdoor de-icing tests and explained the reason for that difference. However, it is crucial to give some information regarding the scale-up of these lab results to in situ expected times when using microwave technology for de-icing. Using this technology would be inviable in practice without reducing the de-icing periods. However, the energy consumption for the microwave source in such conditions may need to be too high. Please comment on this question and add some ideas to the paper.
- Using magnetite, hematite, or a galvanized iron wire mesh is expensive. Moreover, using these materials instead of current cement concrete is not a sustainable solution during construction, as can be confirmed with an LCA assessment of these solutions. Therefore, these new solutions' mechanical and de-icing efficiency advantages must be evaluated against their initial higher environmental impact and cost to demonstrate the "return period" of these technologies.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWritten English quality should be slightly improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Basalt Fiber Reinforced Microwave Absorbing Concrete Shielding Layer." We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions, and we have made the following revisions to address them:
Point 1. Several Figures/Graphics should be revised to improve their resolution. Please try to use vector graphics to improve the quality.
Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. I have addressed your concern by adjusting the resolution of the figures to meet the requirements specified by the journal. The revised figures now adhere to the desired resolution, ensuring improved quality. I have attached the updated figures for your review.
Point 2. The 3D graphics used in Figures 6 and 7 are difficult to read. I suggest using 2D bar graphics with different colours for each material studied.
Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. I have made the necessary revisions to the figures and replaced the 3D graphics with bar charts as requested. By using vector graphics, I have improved the resolution and overall quality of the figures.
Point 3. The colour scheme used throughout the paper is difficult to follow. Please be consistent in the different Figures.
Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. I have addressed your concern by revising the color scheme used in the figures to ensure consistency throughout the paper. I have made the necessary adjustments to align the colors across different figures, making them easier to follow and enhancing the overall clarity.
Point 4. The paper correctly stated that the heating time was higher in the outdoor de-icing tests and explained the reason for that difference. However, it is crucial to give some information regarding the scale-up of these lab results to in situ expected times when using microwave technology for de-icing. Using this technology would be inviable in practice without reducing the de-icing periods. However, the energy consumption for the microwave source in such conditions may need to be too high. Please comment on this question and add some ideas to the paper.
Response 4: I agree that it is crucial to address the scale-up of lab results to in situ conditions when using microwave technology for de-icing. In response to this concern, I conducted outdoor de-icing experiments to investigate the difference between indoor and outdoor de-icing effectiveness. As a result, I found that outdoor de-icing consumes more microwave energy without compromising the de-icing effectiveness. To address this question, I will include a discussion on this topic in Section 3.2 of the paper. Thank you for highlighting this important aspect, and I appreciate the opportunity to enhance the paper accordingly.
Point 5. Using magnetite, hematite, or a galvanized iron wire mesh is expensive. Moreover, using these materials instead of current cement concrete is not a sustainable solution during construction, as can be confirmed with an LCA assessment of these solutions. Therefore, these new solutions' mechanical and de-icing efficiency advantages must be evaluated against their initial higher environmental impact and cost to demonstrate the "return period" of these technologies.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge that using magnetite, hematite, or a galvanized iron wire mesh can be expensive compared to current cement concrete solutions. We also agree that a life cycle assessment (LCA) is crucial to evaluate the sustainability of these alternatives during construction. In our study, we conducted a cost analysis of the MAC pavement, considering the use of low-grade magnetite (400 RMB/ton) and hematite (approximately 750 RMB/ton) as partial replacements for aggregates. The construction cost increased by approximately 14,500 RMB per kilometer with the adoption of these materials. Consequently, the MAC pavement structure added approximately 15,000 RMB per kilometer (for a standard gauge of 3.75 meters). Comparatively, previous studies (Hintz et al., 2022) in the same region reported an annual de-icing salt requirement of approximately 23 tons (at 500 RMB/ton), costing around 11,000 RMB. Therefore, while the MAC pavement structure does increase construction costs, it eliminates the need for de-icing salt. Overall, our testing results validate the proposed pavement structure in our study and demonstrate the feasibility of microwave de-icing through indoor and outdoor experiments.
Hintz, W.D., Fay, L., Relyea, R.A., 2022. Road salts, human safety, and the rising salinity of our fresh waters. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20 (1), 22–30.
Finally, Thank you again for your valuable comments. Wish everything goes well with your work!
With kind regards, on behalf of all authors, Best regards,
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article "Study on basalt fibre reinforced microwave absorbing concrete shielding layer" corresponds to modern scientific trends and has a pronounced practical value. However, the article has shortcomings and requires corrections.
Figure 2: The captions on the figures in red colour are difficult to read.
Line 186 Reference [81] - typo ????
Figure 3: For standard methods, photographs of equipment are not required and only inflate the workload.
It is necessary to shorten the section on objects and methods of research. Leave detailed description only for non-standard methods of research. Note the models of instruments and the country of their production on which the tests were carried out.
Section 2 in my opinion requires a general revision in order to reduce the total volume, which can be done in accordance with the mentioned recommendations or by referring to similar works in the journal "Sustainability" for an example.
In Section 3, figure captions are not readable. Improvement of figure quality to the journal requirement (300 Dpi) is required.
Figure 4 (b) - MACMS and MACMM - is this a typo?
Figure 5 - changes in strength exceed the margin of error of the experiment?
The key observation comes from the objective of the work. The use of microwave radiation in combination with different pavement coatings for heating and as a consequence de-icing of the pavement surface is proposed. However, I find it difficult to understand the part of the experiment where the samples are heated in a microwave oven. This type of microwave treatment produces "standing waves" more effective for heating the sample, which is combined with the complete absorption of microwave energy. But this type of treatment is completely excluded in practice, which completely contradicts the original purpose of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Basalt Fiber Reinforced Microwave Absorbing Concrete Shielding Layer." We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions, and we have made the following revisions to address them:
Point 1. Figure 2: The captions on the figures in red colour are difficult to read.
Response 1 ：I have reviewed the relevant figures and made the necessary changes to the captions to improve readability. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.
Point 2. Line 186 Reference [81] - typo ????
Response 2 ：Apologies for the mistake in reference [81]. It was indeed a typo, and I have removed that reference from the paper. Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention to detail.
Point 3. Figure 3: For standard methods, photographs of equipment are not required and only inflate the workload.
Response 3 ：I have removed the photographs of equipment for standard methods, as suggested. This modification reduces unnecessary workload and streamlines the presentation of the paper. Thank you for your valuable feedback, and I appreciate your input.
Point 4. It is necessary to shorten the section on objects and methods of research. Leave detailed description only for non-standard methods of research. Note the models of instruments and the country of their production on which the tests were carried out.
Response 4 ：I have shortened the section on research methods as suggested, removing unnecessary details and focusing on non-standard methods. Additionally, I have thoroughly revised the second part of the section. I have also cross-checked the information regarding the instruments used and have made the necessary updates. Thank you for your valuable feedback, and I appreciate your guidance in improving the paper.
Point 5. Section 2 in my opinion requires a general revision in order to reduce the total volume, which can be done in accordance with the mentioned recommendations or by referring to similar works in the journal "Sustainability" for an example.
Response 5 ：I have significantly condensed the second part of the section, removing unnecessary details and focusing on essential information. The section has been thoroughly revised to ensure clarity and conciseness.
Point 6. In Section 3, figure captions are not readable. Improvement of figure quality to the journal requirement (300 Dpi) is required.
Response 6 ：I have addressed the concern regarding the readability of figure captions in Section 3. I have improved the quality of all the figures to meet the journal's requirement of 300 DPI (dots per inch). The figures now meet the desired resolution, ensuring clear and legible captions. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I appreciate your feedback in enhancing the paper's presentation.
Point 7. Figure 4 (b) - MACMS and MACMM - is this a typo?
Response 7 ：I apologize for the mistake in Figure 4 (b) regarding the labeling of "MACMS" and "MACMM." It was indeed a typo on my part. I have made the necessary correction to ensure accuracy in the figure. Thank you for pointing out this error, and I appreciate your attention to detail in reviewing the paper.
Point 8. Figure 5 - changes in strength exceed the margin of error of the experiment?
Response 8 ：I have reviewed the experimental data and confirmed that the margin of error for the strength measurements in Figure 5 meets the required standards. Thank you for bringing this concern to my attention, and I appreciate your careful evaluation of the results.
Point 9. The key observation comes from the objective of the work. The use of microwave radiation in combination with different pavement coatings for heating and as a consequence de-icing of the pavement surface is proposed. However, I find it difficult to understand the part of the experiment where the samples are heated in a microwave oven. This type of microwave treatment produces "standing waves" more effective for heating the sample, which is combined with the complete absorption of microwave energy. But this type of treatment is completely excluded in practice, which completely contradicts the original purpose of the study.
Response 9 ：I agree that combining microwave heating with pavement coatings for de-icing is a more efficient approach that can contribute to improving winter road safety. I intend to continue researching this topic in the future. The samples were heated in a microwave oven to assess the microwave absorption efficiency of different specimens under controlled conditions. This allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of various materials in terms of microwave absorption, which correlates with their heating performance. Although the use of standing waves in practical applications is excluded, studying microwave absorption efficiency provides valuable insights into the heating effectiveness of different materials. I appreciate your valuable feedback, as it undoubtedly contributes to enhancing the quality of my research.
Finally, Thank you again for your valuable comments. Wish everything goes well with your work!
With kind regards, on behalf of all authors, Best regards,
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has great relevance in the academic environment, however, to accept it the author must correct the following items
1) I propose that the author review the English version of the manuscript.
2) The summary should be written in the following order: aim, introduction, methodology, results, and conclusions.
3) Keywords are in lower case. Capitalize initials
4) My suggestion to the author is to write the state of the art at the end of the introduction. Generally, it is one of the most important parts of the work, because it brings together the conclusions that another scientific research has reached on the subject.
5) References are relevant but there are obsolete items. I suggest replacing it with articles that have updated the references for a minimum of 5 years.
6) The dosage method used to produce the test specimens and the trace should be entered.
7) Please provide a detailed explanation of the methodology used for the flexion test.
8) It is interesting that you identify and display points that are relevant to future research. In terms of improvements from the study you just completed, as well as other opportunities that you haven't explored.
9) In conclusion, the author must show whether the objective of the article was achieved. It is interesting that you identify and show points that are of relevance for future research. Both from the point of view of improvements in relation to the study you just carried out, as well as other perspectives that can be explored and that you did not.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The article has great relevance in the academic environment, however, to accept it the author must correct the following items
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Basalt Fiber Reinforced Microwave Absorbing Concrete Shielding Layer." We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and suggestions, and we have made the following revisions to address them:
Point 1. I propose that the author review the English version of the manuscript.
Response 1 ：Thank you for your comment regarding the grammatical points in our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of ensuring grammatical accuracy in our paper.
To address this concern, we have taken the necessary steps to have a native English speaker from MDPI review and revise the language issues in our manuscript. Their expertise in English grammar and scientific writing will help us improve the quality and clarity of our paper.
Point 2. The summary should be written in the following order: aim, introduction, methodology, results, and conclusions.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised the structure of the summary to follow the order of aim, introduction, methodology, results, and conclusions. The updated version now provides a clearer and more logical flow of information. Your input has been valuable in improving the organization of my manuscript.
Point 3. Keywords are in lower case. Capitalize initials
Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the error. I apologize for the mistake in capitalizing the keywords and not capitalizing the initials. I have made the necessary corrections to ensure that the keywords are in lowercase. Your attention to detail is greatly appreciated, and your feedback has helped me improve the accuracy of my manuscript.
Point 4. My suggestion to the author is to write the state of the art at the end of the introduction. Generally, it is one of the most important parts of the work, because it brings together the conclusions that another scientific research has reached on the subject.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. I appreciate your insight regarding the importance of including the state of the art at the end of the introduction. I have made the necessary revisions to incorporate additional references and provide a summary of the latest advancements in the current state of research. Your recommendation has been valuable in enhancing the comprehensiveness of my manuscript.
Point 5. References are relevant but there are obsolete items. I suggest replacing it with articles that have updated the references for a minimum of 5 years.
Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your suggestion to update the references and include articles that have provided updated information within the past five years. I have made the necessary revisions to incorporate new references that align with the latest advancements in the field. The newly added references are as follows:
- Andleeb, Z.; Khawaja, H.; Moatamedi, M. "Multiphysics based Analysis of Materials for Roads in Cold Regions to Prevent Ice Adhesion and Low-Temperature Crack Developments." International Journal of Multiphysics 2022, 16, (4), 437-448.
- Peng, C.; Hu, Y. D.; You, Z. P.; Yang, H.; Nie, Y. T.; Wu, T. H.; Yang, H. N.; Ou, R. H. "Preparation and anti-icing performance of acrylic superhydrophobic asphalt pavement coating with microwave heating function." Construction and Building Materials 2022, 344.
- Deng, Y.; Wang, X.; Chen, L.; Liu, M.; Gao, M.; Zhao, J. "A Study on the Heating and Deicing Performance of Microwave-Absorbing Asphalt Mixtures." Materials 2023, 16, (3).
- Liu, M.; Wang, X.; Deng, Y.; Guo, Y.; Zhao, J.; Li, M. "Study on Microwave Deicing Efficiency of Microwave-Absorbing Concrete Pavements and Its Influencing Factors." Materials 2022, 15, (24).
- Zhao, J.; Wang, X.; Xin, L.; Ren, J.; Cao, Y.; Tian, Y. "Concrete pavement with microwave heating enhancement functional layer for efficient de-icing: Design and case study." Cold Regions Science and Technology 2023, 210.
- Micheli, D.; Pastore, R.; Vricella, A.; Morles, R. B.; Marchetti, M.; Delfini, A.; Moglie, F.; Primiani, V. M. "Electromagnetic characterization and shielding effectiveness of concrete composite reinforced with carbon nanotubes in the mobile phones frequency band." Materials Science and Engineering B-Advanced Functional Solid-State Materials 2014, 188, 119-129.
- Trigos, L.; Gallego, J.; Ignacio Escavy, J. "Heating potential of aggregates in asphalt mixtures exposed to microwaves radiation." Construction and Building Materials 2020, 230.
Point 6. The dosage method used to produce the test specimens and the trace should be entered.
Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. I have addressed your concern by including a detailed description of the specimen preparation process in the second section of the manuscript. Additionally, I have added information regarding the dosage method and trace used in the experimental procedure. This ensures that the experiment is reproducible.
Point 7. Please provide a detailed explanation of the methodology used for the flexion test.
Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. I have addressed your concern by providing a detailed explanation of the methodology used for the flexion test in section 2.2 of the manuscript. The experimental procedure follows the guidelines outlined in the Chinese testing standard: JTG 3420-2020. By referencing this standard, I have ensured that the methodology is accurately described and can be replicated by other researchers.
Point 8. It is interesting that you identify and display points that are relevant to future research. In terms of improvements from the study you just completed, as well as other opportunities that you haven't explored
Response 8: Thank you for your feedback. I have addressed your comment by including a discussion on future research opportunities in the fifth point of the conclusion section. In this point, I highlight potential areas for improvement based on the findings of the current study. Additionally, I mention other opportunities that have not been explored in this research but could be pursued in future studies. These additions provide insights into the potential directions for further investigation and contribute to the overall significance of the research.
Point 9. In conclusion, the author must show whether the objective of the article was achieved. It is interesting that you identify and show points that are of relevance for future research. Both from the point of view of improvements in relation to the study you just carried out, as well as other perspectives that can be explored and that you did not.
Response 9: Thank you for your feedback. I have addressed your comment by explicitly stating in the conclusion that the objective of the article is to recommend materials that enhance microwave de-icing efficiency and durability, specifically suggesting the use of magnetite sand shielding layer and incorporating basalt fiber for pavement reinforcement. Additionally, I have discussed future research directions in the final point of the conclusion. By incorporating these elements, I have clarified the achievement of the article's objective and highlighted the potential for further exploration in different perspectives.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I believe that these updated references will enhance the relevance and currency of my manuscript.
Finally, Thank you again for your valuable comments. Wish everything goes well with your work!
With kind regards, on behalf of all authors, Best regards,
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors;
Thank you for solving the declared problems in this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on my manuscript titled Study on basalt fiber reinforced microwave absorbing concrete shielding layer. I appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluating my work.
I am pleased to hear that you acknowledge and appreciate the efforts made to address the issues raised in the paper. Your positive comment, "Thank you for solving the declared problems in this paper," is encouraging and reinforces my commitment to delivering a high-quality research article.
I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive feedback. Your expertise and guidance have been invaluable in improving the overall quality of my research. I am confident that the revisions I will make based on your suggestions will significantly enhance the impact and contribution of this work.
Sincerely,
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Study on basalt fiber reinforced microwave absorbing concrete shielding layer” was well revised and may be accept for publication in present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful evaluation and positive feedback on my manuscript titled "Study on Basalt Fiber Reinforced Microwave Absorbing Concrete Shielding Layer." Your comment, "The article was well revised and may be accepted for publication in its present form," is truly encouraging and reinforces the effort I have put into refining my work.
I am pleased to inform you that I have carefully considered your suggestions and recommendations during the revision process. Specifically, I focused on modifying the design, addressing the research questions, and clearly articulating the methodology employed. My aim was to ensure that the revised manuscript effectively conveys the objectives of the study. I am grateful for your acknowledgment of the clarity achieved through these revisions.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your valuable feedback and guidance throughout the review process. Your expertise and insights have undoubtedly contributed to the overall quality and impact of the manuscript.
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is necessary for the author to review the English again before accepting it
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is necessary for the author to review the English again before accepting it
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. We understand your concern regarding the need for further English language review and improvement before accepting the paper.
In response to your suggestion, we have taken your advice seriously and have decided to seek the assistance of a native English speaker to revise and polish our manuscript. We are currently exploring options on MDPI to find a suitable English language editor who can help us enhance the clarity and coherence of our paper.
We acknowledge the importance of presenting our research in a clear and concise manner, and we are committed to addressing the language-related issues raised by the reviewer. By working with a professional English language editor, we aim to ensure that our paper meets the high standards of academic writing and effectively communicates our research findings.
Once again, we appreciate your valuable feedback, and we are dedicated to improving the English language quality of our manuscript. We will make every effort to address the reviewer's concerns and provide a revised version that adheres to the academic standards of the journal.
Thank you for your guidance and support throughout the review process.
Aqing Jiang
Corresponding author:
Xuancang Wang
School of Highway
Chang’an University
Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
