Improved Artificial Aggregates for Use in Green Roof Design
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper deals with the usage possibility of using fired by-product clayey-silty material (moraine clay) as a porous lightweight artificial aggregate for green roof design. It is aimed to obtain a flat-shaped aggregated as they were determined to be the best solution for the purpose. The study is found novel and valuable to the field. The paper is clearly written and in good English. However, there are possibilities to improve. Generally, every claim needs supporting references, and every result should be confirmed with the literature, if possible. The graphs' quality needs to be improved. The structure of the paper should be improved to separate Materials and methods from Results and discussion. All the results that you have for the 4 samples should be presented, and not only for sample 1.
- Introduction section: While explaining the kinds of aggregates, sand should be mentioned also. Lines 33-38 miss some references.
- When abbreviations are introduced, it is usual to mention them in brackets for the first time with the full term, and then use only abbreviations further in the text. For example, Lightweight aggregate (LWA).
- The claim in 114-116 needs to be further elaborated. In which way was this concluded and what are the beneficiaries? Which unique properties are those?
- The part in lines 120-134 needs references to verify each claim.
- The Materials and Methods section should explain which materials are used, their location, the methods employed, the preparation of samples before analysis and the exact instruments used (and their countries of origin), certified reference materials, etc. The results are then presented in the next chapter.
- Diagrams should be neater, and clearer, have the same font as in the text, and the size of the letters should be uniform and the same in all images. Also, delete the frames from the figures.
- The classification of the 4 tested samples according to their granulometry must be done to confirm the claim that the material used was silty clay or similar using the texture diagram, as in 10.2298/HEMIND121123006A.
- The XRD graph shown in Figure 1 should be re-drawn in Excel for example and then prepared in another program to show the identification of every peak obtained since this way is not clear enough. Was the bulk material only tested? That should be emphasized in the text. You can consult the literature and present the results in this way here https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137153. Also, show all of the 4 sample diffractograms.
- The claims in lines 173-175 and 175- further need more references to support them.
- Braunmillerite is not often found in fired clayey materials, please improve.
- Why are there two chapters called X-Ray Analysis? One is for XRD, and the other for XRF, which are not the same. Were certified raw materials used for the determination of the chemical composition? These results should include loss on ignition and then be re-calculated. Why are only the average results from fractions presented?
- Sintering and those stages can be studied according to dilatometry analyses of clays in the literature, and also, the parameters followed like the percentage of the road until softening, are better to be divided in temperature intervals.
- There is no need to present the stages of minerals during sintering that were not present in your materials, or you do not know if they were there since the XRD of the fired materials was not performed. Please improve (lines 324-329).
- SEM of the fired material would be useful to present. This way was the flatness of grains further proved.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is good.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract.
-The authors must state clearly the research problem, objective, and novelty of the work in the abstract section.
-Moreover, the experimental method and the tests made in this research should also be stated in the abstract.
Introduction section
-The information stated between line 33 to 45 has no referencing, the authors must add references to any statistical data stated in previous research
-In line 56, the authors claimed that aggregate constitutes approximately 70% of the concrete mixture. This is the wrong statement; please refer to international standards.
-In lines 93–94, the researchers claimed that “green roofs containing organic matter should contain 70–90% of the volume of minerals.”
2.1.1 Grain distribution analysis
The authors should clearly describe the components of each sample (table 2) before the sieve analysis and how each sample differs from the others.
Characteristics of the grinding and screening technology station
Figure 5 needs more description
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made a significant effort to improve the paper and discuss comments obtained from the review. I am glad this review helped introduce some new aspects of the materials tested. Also, I believe the paper is ready to be published.
