Effects of Sodium Silicate Alkali Sludge on the Rheological and Mechanical Properties of an Alkali-Activated Slag System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors submitted a very interesting article titled “Effects of sodium silicate alkali sludge on the rheological and mechanical properties of alkali-activated slag system”.
The article is well written. The general structure of the manuscript conforms to the scientific method (e.g., Introduction-Materials and Methods-Data (results)-Discussion-Conclusions).
The manuscript contains very useful informations and, in my opinion, the paper should be published after minor revisions.
My few concerns are in particular about Figures. My comments are on the pdf file.
I recommend you to check the manuscript for typos once more before the final submission.
Sincerely,
The reviewer.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2：
Comment: (1) a mention of the methods used in the abstract might be useful
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The methods used in this article was mentioned in the abtract. (Line 19-20)
Comment: (2) Lines 18-19: Please try to modify "increase"....two times in two lines
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. This error has been modified. (Line 20)
Comment: (3) Line 38: "Currently" would be better maybe; Line 39: add a point after" sludge". Start the sentence with "However”
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The sentences have been corrected accordingly. (Line 40-41)
Comment: (4) Line 62-62: maybe "for the first time" should be positioned after "was used" to be more effective.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The sentence has been corrected. (Line 66)
Comment: (5) Fig. 2: The scale of these images is unreadable...please try to make the whole black part under the image (containing all the information about the acquisition" by yourself. assure you that the images will look much better. Anyway, the scale absolutely must been larger.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The two figures in Fig 2 are changed and enlarged, and an additional note on magnification was added in the figure label (Line 89). Additionally, Figure 2(b) was been changed due to the wrong origin version.
Comment: (6) Pay attention to apexes (highlighted in yellow in Table 2)
Response: All the m3 have been corrected to m3. (Table 2)
Comment: (7) Fig.5: Try to enlarge the black box around the legend, it almost finish on the %lf Fig.5 remains shifted in 2, and therefore continues in the next page, you 1) should think about moving the whole panels to page 6, maybe making them smaller ..or 2) you should write the caption after the first part of Fig.5 (pag. 5), and then add a second caption after the last two panels (pag.6) and write " Fig.5.(continue) personally prefer the second option you can also put the panel letters (a),(b), etc. inside the diagrams (maybe on top left/right) to recover space. Lastly, try to enlarge the scales in the zoomed diagram.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The second option was adopted and a captions have been added on pages 5.
Comment: (8) Fig.7.Same goes for Fig. 5 regarding the shift of the panels and the other things. Moreover, the meaning of the bars on the histograms should be explicated (it is clearly intuitive, but it is better to specify the range of values in which they can vary)
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Captions have been added on pages 7. The bars appear on the histogram are error bars, and specific data has been added to the histogram.
Comment: (9) Try to enlarge the scales in the zoomed diagrams. Moreover, the two diagrams are of different size. Make them consistent.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Fig 8 was modified accordingly.
Comment: (10) Table 3. Pay attention to the apexes (highlighted in yellow)
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The modification in Table 3 has been made accordingly.
Comment: (11) Fig. 10: Also in this case, the scale and all the information in the white boxes and black parts are unreadable...please enlarge them.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The figures in Fig 10 are changed and enlarged, and additional notes on magnification were added in the figure label.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
This research proposes a solution to capitalize the alkali sludge (derived from sodium silicate production) in production of cementitious construction materials.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
I consider that the topic is original and relevant in the field. This work provides a reference for the utilization of alkaline solid waste from chemical industry as alkali activators in cementitious construction materials. Any consistent work aiming at the reduction of this type of waste (as any other kind of recovery until 0 waste) and its valorization is important.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
I suggested to the authors to highlight this novelty at the discussion section by comparing with other papers in the domain.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
They proposed a specific method for a special type of waste. They tested the best methodology and the research was finished with a concrete recipe for obtaining certain cementitious construction materials.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
I consider the proposed problem well solved.
6. Are the references appropriate?
I consider this.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
I already commented on the tables and figures
Please, find attached some remarks.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment: (1) Line 23: “C-S-H” is an acronym. It should be defined.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Relevant definitions have been added in first apparenece in Abstract. (Line 24)
Comment: (2) Line 25: “…alkali-activated slag with blend of alkali sludge…” in what proportion?
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The range of blend of alkali sludge (10%-30%) was supplemented in Line 27.
Comment: (3) Lines 93-96: The exponent of s must be written s−1 .
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. These errors were corrected in Line 98-100.
Comment: (4) Table 2: For cubic meter – m3, not m3.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. This error has been corrected in Table 2.
Comment: (5) Line 102-103: cm−1. For the figures, I think that the writing should be greater.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. This error has been corrected and more textual notes was added.
Comment: (6) Line 249: A space after 950.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. A space was added after 950 in Line 266.
Comment: (7) Discussion in the 3.6 section should be made by reporting to literature papers.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Two references ([39] and [40]) have been added in section 3.6.
Comment: (8) Lines 337-338: To reformulate.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The expression and context were reformulated. (Line 348-351)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be published in present form.
