Analysis of Hydration Mechanism of Steel Slag-Based Cementitious Materials under Saline–Alkaline-Coupled Excitation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-presented. Some comments that should be considered:

1.   Abstract is very clumsy writing.

2.   Citation errors in the manuscript should be updated.

3.   Formula 1,2, and 3 are the wrong formation

4.   Figs. 3-4: some Chinese words are detached, please correct them.

 

5.   In Fig. 8, how do you recognize the compositions: AFt, Calcite, and A-S-H gels

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check English before publication. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is innovative and the paper has a good scientific idea, but the following issues need to be revised.

(1) Relevant literature cannot be found in the citation of references, which may be a problem of cross-referencing, and it is suggested to revise the format and re-insert the references.

(2) In 2.1, there is a lack of strong arguments to support "chemical activation of desulfurization gypsum on steel slag micropowder", and it is suggested to expand the description and refer to "10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131409 ".

(3) In 2.2.1 about the influence factors of medium carbonation conservation lack of thesis support, suggest citing relevant literature.

(4) In 2.2.3 about the carbonization conservation method is expressed somewhat general, it is recommended to specify the carbonization conservation method.

(5) In 4.2, the change trend of pH value of G0 pore liquid has not been explained.

(6) In 5.1, regarding "sulfate ions can react with the meta-aluminate ions dissociated from the slagto form calcium alumina", it is suggested to refer to the literature "10.3390/buildings14020314".

(7) In 5.2, regarding "Some of the generated calomel crystals are exposed and not interlocked with the C-S-H gel to form a dense structure, which is macroscopically manifested as a decrease in the mechanical properties of the steel slag-based cementitious materials", please cite the source of the relevant paper.

(8) In 6.0, it is suggested that the idea that "the dissolution equilibrium of slag is broken" be discussed.

(9) In Conclusion 1, it is recommended that the compressive strength of the cementitious material at 28d of calibration be written.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, your manuscript requires significant revision!

1. There is absolutely no literature in the Introduction! At this stage, you could get rejected....

2. Ok, next

Line 36-38: it is necessary to write the approximate percentages of the listed oxides. Otherwise, it does not look convincing, and especially without citation, such information cannot be submitted.

Line 40: write an explanation for these formulas.

Whether steel slag is waste should be written at the beginning of the introduction, not in the middle of 43-46. This is not the conclusion of the Authors.

Line 52: What is silicate cement? Here the authors meant something completely different

line 56: it is not correct to use the word "defects". Here, most likely, we are talking about advantages and disadvantages.

Line 54-65: in general, this text contains many errors. Correcting every sentence by the reviewer is very difficult. The Authors confuse the terms. Glass solution is not an alkali, it is a salt of a strong alkali...

Line 63-65: it is very difficult to understand what the Authors wanted to say.

What is desulfurization gypsum? Why was it used? What is its impact?

In my opinion, it is more appropriate to use the same way of writing formulas in the manuscript. I draw your attention to line 88 and 90.

In the Methodology section, there is no information about how the research was conducted, the results of which are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 2.

Line 127-130: This should have been written in the Introduction.

Line 398: What is mean "Under the condition of saline and alkaline coupling excitation" ?

I carefully read the Introduction, the purpose of the work and the conclusions. I believe that the conclusions are very weakly related to the scientific problem and the set aim.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree such version of manuscript