A Study on Sensitivity of Soil-Based Building Mixtures to Biodeterioration by Fungi: Towards Sustainable Earth Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relevance and importance of the research presented by the authors of this article is beyond doubt.

However, the title of the article does not correspond to the experimental material presented in the manuscript. If we are talking about studying of humidity effect on fungal growth,  it should not be only one level of humidity - and its average value. The authors conclude that "The specific parameters (humidity level between 45% and 50%. ) were selected due to their suitability in fostering the growth of fungi within the study area." It is incorrect to select the average humidity value. According to the authors, in winter the humidity was more than 60%, but the results on the effect of this  humidity level are not presented. In addition, when assessing the fungal resistance of various materials, tests must be carried out on specific test fungi, which are among the destructors of building materials, and the humidity in the test chamber should be about 80-90%, which is the most optimal for the growth of fungi-destructors. Unfortunately, based on the results presented by the authors, it is impossible to unambiguously draw a conclusion about the fungal resistance of the tested materials.

Unfortunately, the article cannot be published in this form as significant revision is required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, authors confirmed how moisture affects mold growth on the surface of earth constructions. In a world, the manuscript provided an insight into the effects of fungal growth on the durability of earth constructions. This manuscript contains noteworthy information. Nevertheless, some comments are suggested to be considered:

1. More information were shown in the Introduction. The information of line 76-93 is better to move to the Discussion part.

2. More information were shown in the Conclusions. It is better to concentrate this part.

3. Six types of mixtures were used to investigate with temperature within the range of 18 °C and 19 °C and humidity levels within between 45 % and 50 %. It is known that the different temperature also affects fungal growth. How about the factor affects mold growth on the surface of earth constructions?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study's focus on moisture's impact on fungal growth in stabilized earth construction materials is timely and relevant, particularly in the context of green building materials. The methodology for artificial incubation of fungal cultures provides an understanding of the experimental setup. However, the range of temperature (18 °C to 19 °C) and humidity (around 45%) seems quite narrow and specific. It would be beneficial for the study to include a wider range of environmental conditions, reflecting the varied climates where these materials might be used. This would enhance the applicability of the findings.

The study appears to rely heavily on visual observation techniques, which are noted as subjective. While the inclusion of microscopic tests is commendable, it would be beneficial to elaborate more on these tests and possibly include other quantitative measures of fungal growth.

The information on the duration of the evaluation, the environmental conditions during this period, and any maintenance or other factors that could influence fungal growth would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mixture's effectiveness in practical applications.

Additionally, considering the potential impacts of these additives on other properties of the construction materials, such as strength and thermal performance, would offer a more holistic view of their suitability for use in earth constructions.

Conclusion is too long and present findings, what already presented in results. It is recommended to conclude this study rather than repetition of results. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors studied the fungal growth in the surface of stabilized earth construction materials. They found different proportions of soil and additives showed different influences on the fungal growth. The mixture 3C was further used to construct a rammed building and proved that the mixture 3C would be a green efficient replacement. After reading this manuscript, I think this manuscript is a report. The following are some comments.

1.      The effects of moisture on fungal growth were studied. I am curious that how the moisture was performed? Through different proportions of soils and additives? No information of the effects of moisture on fungal growth was described in abstract.  

2.      Table 1, Why prepared these six types? The reasons of choosing the different proportions of soils and additives?

3.      4D is used for control?

4.      Where is the methods for the microscopic observation? Please add to the material and methods.

5.      How many replicates were used in this studies？It seems there are three replications as shown in figures?

6.      Figure 8: it seems that no mold growth was observed in mixture 5E and 6F. Why only mixture 3C was used for further study to construct a rammed building? Please specify it.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this article tried to respond to all my comments in a sufficiently reasoned manner.

As for the title of the article, I would recommend the following option:

«The study of the earth-based building mixtures sensitivity to biodeterioration by fungi».

 

The authors quite reasonably explained the choice of the studied humidity in the range of 42-48%.

 

However, I will emphasize again. To draw conclusions about the fungal resistance of various materials, a prerequisite is the development of fungal growth at a humidity level of about 90% (optimum for fungal growth).

 

Therefore, I would recommend that the authors of the article still study the fungal resistance of the selected materials at a humidity level of about 90%.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses and the revisions/corrections highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all the concerns and incorporated the suggested revisions into the manuscript. As such, I endorse this paper for publication in the journal Sustainability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses and the revisions/corrections highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 350-351.  The method description should be provided in the material and method.  Figure 12 is also not  a necessary information. I think it can be displayed in the SI.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses and the revisions/corrections highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf