Eco-Efficiency Assessment Utilizing Recycled Glass Aggregate in Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We found the reviewer's comments very useful. I have attached the responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is about an eco-efficiency assessment of using recycled glass aggregate in concrete. However, some issues must to be addressed:

1. Title: I suggest to replace “utilizing” with “using”.
2. Abstract: Please start by expressing the aim of this paper, followed by the rest of the information. Typically, the abstract should provide a broad overview of the entire project, summarize the results, and present the implications of the research or what it adds to its field.
3. Keywords are missing.
4. The bibliographic foundation is important and well executed, however some new discussions should be inserted, authors should consider some works in the literature, such as: DOI 10.3390/ma14040809 or https://doi.org/10.37358/RC.19.4.7106.
5. Tabel 2 is containing some “Mix no” column without explanation about M0 to M4: which materials were mixed? Which conditions? What recipes?? What kind of fly ash was used with a density about 400 kg/mc as it was described???? Fly ash has a much lower density!!!
6. Which is the link between the columns from table 3 … “Contd.” …???
7. Figure 1 has no bar erorrs.
8. The results are merely presented, not properly discussed. Please add explanations for the observed changes. Please give an extended discussion on the obtained results and correlate your findings with previous literature studies and prospective applications.
9. More analysis and interpretation of the results should be added for a clearer understanding of observed experimental phenomena.
10. The authors must to provide some details about importance of the research and their applicability.
11. Please rewrite the conclusions in a more quantitative form and enhance the clarity of the conclusion section in order to highlight the results obtained.
12. General check-up and correction of the English language is suggested. There are still some minor typos and grammatical errors.

The author needs to address the abovementioned points for the betterment of the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

The reviewer's comments were helpful and constructive. Responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is suitable for publication.