Experimental Study on Improving the Performance of Cement Mortar with Self-Synthesized Viscosity-Reducing Polycarboxylic Acid Superplasticizer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is well-written and well-organised. I recommend it for publication after major revision.
1. Abstract should be more improved for more concise. In the current version, background introduction takes half of the space.
2. The authors need to highlight the novelty of the work presented. Please, demonstrate more obvious your innovation in this work. Would you mind identifying discrimination between your work and others?
3. I also suggest improving the literature review by discussing those mentioned above and other journal papers facing similar issues.
4. A linguistic revision of the manuscript is necessary (there are some minor grammatical errors)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA linguistic revision of the manuscript is necessary (there are some minor grammatical errors).
Author Response
1.Abstract should be more improved for more concise. In the current version, background introduction takes half of the space.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The abstract has been streamlined and some background information in the introduction has been removed.
2.The authors need to highlight the novelty of the work presented. Please, demonstrate more obvious your innovation in this work. Would you mind identifying discrimination between your work and others?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The existing research on the VRPCE mainly focuses on the issues of poor fluidity and difficult pumping of high strength concrete. However, there is a lack of comprehensive research on the impact of various properties of the cement-based materials, including fluidity, strength, shrinkage, creep, and so on. In addition, the interaction mechanism of the VRPCE and cement-based materials are not very clear. Based on this, a new VRPCE was synthesized innovatively by using methylallyl polyoxyethylene ether (HPEG3000), acrylic acid (AA) and maltodextrin maleic acid monoester (MDMA) as raw materials in this study. The microscopic interaction mechanism between superplasticizer molecule and cement particles was studied by GPC, TOC, zeta potential, laser particle size. And the influence of the VRPCE on the micro properties of cement were analyzed by XRD, MIP, TG, and SEM. Finally, the effects of this self-synthesized VRPCE on the properties of cement mortar were analyzed through experiments of flow time, slump flow, compressive strength, shrinkage, and creep. The specific content has been inserted into lines 127-139.
3.I also suggest improving the literature review by discussing those mentioned above and other journal papers facing similar issues.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The specific content has been inserted into lines 112-126 by adding three references.
4.A linguistic revision of the manuscript is necessary (there are some minor grammatical errors)
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The linguistic issues of the whole article have been modified.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper entitled ‘Experimental Study on Improving the Performance of Cement Mortar with Self-synthesized Viscosity Reducing Polycarboxylic Acid Superplasticizer’ intends to present influence of new admixture for various properties of high strength concrete. As known the PCE has a significant negative impact on the viscosity of the high strength concrete. So this paper can be interesting for researchers and expert in this field. Although the article contains the necessary scope of research and discussion of test results, a major review is necessary prior to publication .
The Materials and Sample Preparation section is rather confusing. Authors refer to procedures based on national standards (GB), treating them as known in the world. Meanwhile, the issues described are the subject of international standards (ISO). Due to the scope of the journal, the article should describe research procedures and refer them to international standards:
The GB8076-2008 standard compares to ISO 19596:2017
Standard GB/T19077.1-2008 compare to ISO 13320:2020
Standard GB/T 17671-1999 compare to ISO 679:2009
In the 2.2.6. MIP section, the authors provide the pore diameter measurement range of 0.003-400 µm (i.e. from 3 to 400,000 nm) n. Meanwhile, the test results are presented in the range from 7 to 100,000 nm. What are the causes of these differences? Units should also be unified.
Fig. 6 are illegible. What is this rectangle in the picture a)
The authors stated that "Figure 8 shows the SEM results of C0, C1, C2, and C3. When VRPCE1, VRPCE2, and 428 VRPCE3 were added to the cement, the amounts of the pores on the surface of the cement samples gradually increased" . What is the basis for this statement? Fig. 8 presented in the article does not present a scientific analysis, but only some speculations. Surface porosity had to be examined using, for example, numerical image analysis by defining a color for porosity and automatic identification of a given range on the entire tested surface. Optical posimetry can also be used.
The conclusions are laconic. After such an extensive analysis of the research results, one could expect not only statements regarding selected features but also all the parameters that were tested, as well as an indication of the most advantageous solution and further research.The text of chapter 4 needs formatting.
Author Response
The paper entitled ‘Experimental Study on Improving the Performance of Cement Mortar with Self-synthesized Viscosity Reducing Polycarboxylic Acid Superplasticizer’ intends to present influence of new admixture for various properties of high strength concrete. As known the PCE has a significant negative impact on the viscosity of the high strength concrete. So this paper can be interesting for researchers and expert in this field. Although the article contains the necessary scope of research and discussion of test results, a major review is necessary prior to publication.
1.The Materials and Sample Preparation section is rather confusing. Authors refer to procedures based on national standards (GB), treating them as known in the world. Meanwhile, the issues described are the subject of international standards (ISO). Due to the scope of the journal, the article should describe research procedures and refer them to international standards:
The GB8076-2008 standard compares to ISO 19596:2017
Standard GB/T19077.1-2008 compare to ISO 13320:2020
Standard GB/T 17671-1999 compare to ISO 679:2009
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The national standards have been replaced by international standards. The specific content has been inserted into lines 143, 219-220, 245 and 259.
2.In the 2.2.6. MIP section, the authors provide the pore diameter measurement range of 0.003-400 µm (i.e. from 3 to 400,000 nm) n. Meanwhile, the test results are presented in the range from 7 to 100,000 nm. What are the causes of these differences? Units should also be unified.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The 0.003-400 µm has been revised as 3-400000 nm in line 235. Section 2.2.6 was used to introduce the device AutoPore IV 9500 for testing the pore structure of materials, which has a testing aperture range of 3 to 400000 nm. The X-axis coordinate of Figures 6 (a) and 6 (d) in the article were logarithmic coordinate, so the scale was uneven. The analyzed pore size range was 3-100000 nm, not 7-100000 nm. In addition, for cement paste material, there are generally no pores with a pore size exceeding 100000 nm. Therefore, analyzing pores with a pore size exceeding 100000 nm has no practical significance. To sum up, the pore size range analyzed in this article was 3-100000 nm.
3.Fig. 6 are illegible. What is this rectangle in the picture (a).
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In Figure 6(a), different colored rectangular blocks were used to distinguish the pore types corresponding to different pore ranges. The yellow area, green area, purple area, and blue area represented gel pores (<10 nm), transitional pores (10 nm<pore size<100 nm), capillary pores (100 nm<pore size<1000 nm), and large pores (>1000 nm), respectively. The specific contents have been revised in lines 389-393.
4.The authors stated that "Figure 8 shows the SEM results of C0, C1, C2, and C3. When VRPCE1, VRPCE2, and 428 VRPCE3 were added to the cement, the amounts of the pores on the surface of the cement samples gradually increased". What is the basis for this statement? Fig. 8 presented in the article does not present a scientific analysis, but only some speculations. Surface porosity had to be examined using, for example, numerical image analysis by defining a color for porosity and automatic identification of a given range on the entire tested surface. Optical posimetry can also be used.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The SEM image has been binarized and the number of holes in the image has been counted. Then the porosity of the cement paste with the VRPCEs were calculated, which was almost consistent with the MIP results. The specific contents can be found in lines 431-451.
5.The conclusions are laconic. After such an extensive analysis of the research results, one could expect not only statements regarding selected features but also all the parameters that were tested, as well as an indication of the most advantageous solution and further research. The text of chapter 4 needs formatting.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The chapter 5 (original chapter 4) has been revised in lines 575-602.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt was a successful work. Congratulations
Author Response
In this article, cement properties of new polycarboxylic acid plasticizer synthesized with methylallyl polyoxyethylene ether (HPEG3000), acrylic acid (AA) and maltodextrin maleic acid monoester were investigated. The study is a study that will contribute to the literature. If the following suggestions are made, I find it appropriate for the article to be published in your journal.
1.The discussion section of the article should be improved.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The Section 3 results and discussion has been separated into two sections, 3 results and 4 discussion. The Section 3.6, 3.8, 4.8, 4.11, 4.12 have been modified in lines 389-393, 431-451, 540-545, 562-564, 570-572.
2.The conclusion of the article should be rewritten
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The conclusion of this article has been improved in lines 575-602.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
the research you have presented is very interesting and may have a significant impact on the development of a new class of PCE-type superplasticisers that can significantly improve the properties of cement. The research and results are very well presented in this paper. However, for the paper to be published, there are a number of improvements that need to be made, which I outline below:
1) The literature in the paper does not include items from the last two years . Please supplement the literature with such items and refer to them in the last paragraph of Chapter 1, so that it is clear what contribution your research has made to the state of the art.
2) Chapter 3 should be split into two separate chapters - Results and Discussion. The Discussion section should mainly contain information about the limitations of the study that may affect the interpretation of the results, a discussion of what implications the results have for practice, a reflection on the theoretical implications of the results (e.g. for theories on cement properties and additives), suggestions for further research that could extend or deepen knowledge on the topic.
3) The Conclusions chapter should be expanded. The chapter should include a brief summary and a reference to each of the results obtained.
All the best,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Authors,
the research you have presented is very interesting and may have a significant impact on the development of a new class of PCE-type superplasticisers that can significantly improve the properties of cement. The research and results are very well presented in this paper. However, for the paper to be published, there are a number of improvements that need to be made, which I outline below:
1.The literature in the paper does not include items from the last two years. Please supplement the literature with such items and refer to them in the last paragraph of Chapter 1, so that it is clear what contribution your research has made to the state of the art.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The research status of water reducing agents in the past two years has been supplemented. The specific changes can be found in 112-126.
2.Chapter 3 should be split into two separate chapters - Results and Discussion. The Discussion section should mainly contain information about the limitations of the study that may affect the interpretation of the results, a discussion of what implications the results have for practice, a reflection on the theoretical implications of the results (e.g. for theories on cement properties and additives), suggestions for further research that could extend or deepen knowledge on the topic.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Chapter 3 has been divided into two parts: 3.Results and 4.Discussion. In the Discussion section, some limitations of the experimental results have been added, as shown in lines 562-564, 570-572.
3.The Conclusions chapter should be expanded. The chapter should include a brief summary and a reference to each of the results obtained.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The conclusion of this article has been improved in lines 575-602.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: buildings-3048608 is well written, the manuscript can be accepted after minor grammar revisions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIn general, the manuscript has strong writing skills and effectively communicates the research findings. Nevertheless, certain modest adjustments in syntax and language are required to enhance the clarity and readability.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article in its current form can be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorscongratulations
