Reliability of Reusing Gypsum Flat Board Grinded Waste as a Conventional Plaster Replacement for Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract provides a concise summary of the study, including its objectives, methodology, and key findings. However, it could benefit from a clearer statement of the study's significance and a brief mention of the results to strengthen its impact. I have the following general comments:

• The study could benefit from more specific recommendations for future research or practical applications. Suggestions on how to improve the integration of cardboard fibers or optimize the grinding process would be useful.
• The selection of samples from a specific project in Bogotá is appropriate for the case study approach. However, the study could benefit from discussing the potential variability in gypsum waste from different sources and how this might affect the results.

 

Author Response

comments 1: [The study could benefit from more specific recommendations for future research or practical applications. Suggestions on how to improve the integration of cardboard fibers or optimize the grinding process would be useful.]

Response 1: [For the grinding processes, it will be necessary to conduct a study to optimize them, as these processes are generally accompanied by several variables to consider.]

comments 2: [The selection of samples from a specific project in Bogotá is appropriate for the case study approach. However, the study could benefit from discussing the potential variability in gypsum waste from different sources and how this might affect the results.]

Response 2: [While there are various sources, the main source of gypsum waste in Colombia is construction, so other sources are not considered at the time of this research.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations

The article presents an orderly and clear structure

The subject is relevant, and the findings are presented in an understandable way.

The importance of the study is highlighted due to the verification carried out at the real construction site. The experimental part is well supported.

The proposal for recycling gypsum boards presents an important contribution to the circularity of processes in the field of civil construction.

Although the results show a decrease in the mechanical properties of recycled gypsum, I believe that the difference is not relevant due to the non-structural use of the proposed recycled gypsum.

The bibliography is relevant and well used to understand the findings

Materials and methods are clear

The results and discussion are complete and present what was found in an orderly manner and with a view to the future

The discussion on the Circular Economy is well analyzed and presents important conclusions from this study.

In lines 303 and 304 there are reduction data in two impact categories (global warming and non-renewable energy), but it is not clear how they found this data. Did you perform a life cycle analysis with any software that provided this data?

The conclusions are in line with what was presented throughout the article

Congratulations!

Author Response

Comments 1:

[In lines 303 and 304 there are reduction data in two impact categories (global warming and non-renewable energy), but it is not clear how they found this data. Did you perform a life cycle analysis with any software that provided this data?]

Response 1: 

[We agree, and for this purpose, we provide the relevant information, where we present a table to better explain the data. The software SimaPro 8.3.0 was used to generate the data.]

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Regarding the reviewed paper, I found the following:

As weak elements

 The abstract must be extended to at least 200 words !

The introduction should be reconsidered and expanded! Only 14 references are used in the few lines! Authors should comment (in the introduction), references from the specialized literature. Indicating the page in the reference does not seem advisable to me. It could be entered in the bibliography if that is desired.

I recommend consulting the "Authors' Guide"! For example, figure 9 and 10 can be placed on the same line and obviously reduced (they take up almost a whole page)!

Line 165 - "Columbian Normativity" (19) - the expression could be more technical: "in accordance with the Colombian standard etc...”

Line 214 – ”Def-Lab-Geo-Imagen software” - it is not found in the bibliography!

My suggestion is that the "Patent section" should be changed to "Authors Contributions"!

 

As notable elements

I find that the paper is good and has a lot of work "behind" it, a lot of experimental part (well interpreted, by the way) and is well structured!

 

Author Response

Comments 1: [The abstract must be extended to at least 200 words]

Response 1: [The abstract now exceeds 200 words, providing a more in-depth summary of the research, as opposed to the previous 150-word limit.]

Comments 2: [The introduction should be reconsidered and expanded! Only 14 references are used in the few lines! Authors should comment (in the introduction), references from the specialized literature. Indicating the page in the reference does not seem advisable to me. It could be entered in the bibliography if that is desired]

Response 2: [By reducing the number of references from fourteen to five and emphasizing the most crucial ones, we can achieve a higher level of original contribution, ultimately improving the manuscript's quality.]

Comments 3: [I recommend consulting the "Authors' Guide"! For example, figure 9 and 10 can be placed on the same line and obviously reduced (they take up almost a whole page)!]

Response 3: [ Figures 9 and 10 have been revised for better structure.]

Comments 4: [Line 165 - "Columbian Normativity" (19) - the expression could be more technical: "in accordance with the Colombian standard etc...”]

Response 4: [ The modification is made to ensure a more technical style]

Comments 5: [Line 214 – ”Def-Lab-Geo-Imagen software” - it is not found in the bibliography!]

Response 5: [ A proper reference to the Def-Lab software is included.]

Comments 6: [My suggestion is that the "Patent section" should be changed to "Authors Contributions"!]

Response 6:  [Patents are being exchanged for author contributions.]