Self-Cleaning Cement-Based Building Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Line 14 just mention pollution, sufficient, water and soil pollution is missing
2. Line 27-29: Is this sentences required here for this paper, this part can be somewhere in the discussions section
3.  Line 18 grammar mistake
4. In abstract what exactly was the work and what a reader should know  may be clearly communicated, its missing
5. First para of introduction content flow issue exists, I sincerely insist authors to give the paper for proof reading to some peers
6. Line 155 not considered: explained or dealt with
7. Line 177: What will be the effect on cost increase?
8. Line 205-7,8-17 grammar issues prevail please check, in several places grammar issues exists, please check it.
9. Line 207: What is true density?
10. Line 230,232,238: check sentence, is it correct?
11. Line 236: is typical for graphene oxide: what it literally means?
12. Line 253: What is manufactures passport, use internationally understandable notations and language.
13. Line 263-265 gives improper meaning, like this multiple sentences are not at all providing any meaning.
14. Line 267: what is that product name?
15. Line 270-272 move it to acknowledgement section
16. Usage of "are" and " is" is confused everywhere, please check
17. Line 294: For manufacturing it...
18. Line 354-360: check other articles and understand how to provide code details then provide clearly.
19. Proof read the paper properly and make it readable, send for evaluation, I will be able to evaluate further.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort that editor and reviewers dedicated to providing helpful suggestions concerning our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript carefully under the valuable and insightful suggestions offered by the reviewers, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Implemented changes to the manuscript are highlighted in red. Below we justify our responses in point-by-point manner to the suggestions made by the respected reviewers of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is characterized by a deep characterization of the materials, together with a good description of the experimental tests.

The authors reported a state of the art of this research but it is not clear how this paper is innovative with respect to what already published. In other words, which advantages can be found compared to what reported in literature? It must be stated in the introduction section and in the conclusion section.

Durability tests of these materials must be considered in order to consider possible applications for outside elements.

Potential photocatalytic degradation scheme of the pollutants during photocatalysis can be reported to understand potential by-products formed in the process.

The conclusion section must be enriched with a deeper description of the most important results obtained.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort that editor and reviewers dedicated to providing helpful suggestions concerning our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript carefully under the valuable and insightful suggestions offered by the reviewers, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Implemented changes to the manuscript are highlighted in red. Below we justify our responses in point-by-point manner to the suggestions made by the respected reviewers of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Now the paper is in revised format which is good to go, I recommend publication of this at this juncture.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be accepted for publication