Photocatalytic Recycled Mortars: Circular Economy as a Solution for Decontamination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting work and I find it well described and written but I would like to suggest to the authors some points to improve and make it clearer:

1. Pg 2. Line 52: Explain briefly why FRA present unsatisfactory results according the referred authors
2. Pg 3. Line 111-131. The aim of this work should be explained in a shorter way. Try to synthetize it.
3. Pg 4. Experimental program. Why have the authors chosen that mortar dosage? Why have you not considered the use of any admixture? The mortar dosage was calculated based on EN 196-1: Method of testing cement.  Wouldn't it have been more suitable to use a standard for mortars? What is designed the mortar for?
4. Pg 5. Line 193. Why have the authors decided to measure carbonatation depth after 28 days? Why not at another age or at different ages to see the evolution?
5. Pg 6. Line 224. You reference the recycled mortars workability of another work, have the workability of the mortars in this study been studied?
6. Pg 6. Line 230. The authors point a “draining concrete” appearance and in other part of the manuscript describe a porous aspect, why do not include some pictures of the samples?
7. Pg 7. Mechanical strengths. The compressive and flexural strength are very high. Explain the final purpose for this type of mortars.
8. Pg 7. Line 247. Why is this standard referenced? Would it be used if the research is succesful?
9. Pg 14. Line 367. Explain why measures such as decreasing the percentage of fine particles, increasing the porosity of the surface layer or decreasing the amount of cement have not been taken if others authors have suggested a better behaviour with this actions.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

 We thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Photocatalytic recycled mortars: circular economy as a solution for decontamination” (applsci-937108), for publication in Applied Sciences. The authors greatly appreciate each of the comments provided by the reviewers. We have seriously considered of these comments.

As general comments, it should be noted that:

• an English revision was made before the paper was sent. Certificate of English proofread of this paper is attached. In addition, with the changes introduced in this first revision, the paper has been revised again in a second English review. This second certificate is also attached.
• two major changes have occurred in the introduction and conclusions sections, at the suggestion of several reviewers.
• for a higher quality of the images, the graphics entered will be uploaded uncompressed. The authors have taken the opportunity to introduce color in two of these graphs to improve their understanding.
• new bibliographic references have been introduced, so the numbering of these has also been modified.
• The explanations of what have changed in response to the reviewers’ comments are given point by point in the following pages attached in this letter.

We are convinced that the changes made will help improve the quality of the publication and hope that all these changes fulfil the requirements to make the manuscript acceptable for publication in Applied Sciencies.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Auxi Barbudo, Angélica Lozano-Lunar, Antonio López-Uceda, Adela P. Galvín and Jesús Ayuso

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Article reports an experimental work on the properties of mortar with recycled aggregates from CDW, containing photocatalytic cement. Authors replaced 20, 40 and 100% of natural aggregates by recycled aggregates in the mortar mix. Authors also replaced Portland cement by photocatalytic cement. It is a current and interesting topic on the reuse of RCD in mortars, their contribution to sustainability and to the improvement of the environment. The article and the results are supported by existing studies in the scientific community.

However some details should be considered to improve the manuscript. Suggestions are below.

 

Suggestions to improve the manuscript:

In general

• In the introduction, only 1 generic paragraph about FRA is presented (line 51-56). This theme should be a little more in-depth since it has its importance in the article (types of FRA, main properties, comparison with FNA, etc.). The introduction, as it stands, looks like an article only about photocatalysis.
• Please review the quality of the images. Some graphics seem to be with low resolution, but it may be only due to the pdf of the draft.
• The article's contribution to the implementation of the circular economy model, as mentioned, should be better explained.
• The conclusions can be improved. More technical findings can be extracted from the tests and analysis.

 

In particular

• Page 1, line 51: “However, the fine fraction of recycled aggregates…restricted use due to some unsatisfactory results”. Comment: Improve the sentence, highlighting the main factors that restrict the use of FRA, but also resume some methodologies already known to overcome these restrictions.
• Page 3, line 122: “Another peculiarity of this research is the use of mixed recycled aggregates … of recycled concrete”. Comment: The sentence is not integrated. The comparison with recycled concrete appears without framing. Review the text.
• Page 4, line 137: Replace “addition of of titanium” by “addition of titanium”.
• Page 4, line 164: “…photocatalytic CEM I…”. Comment: Change to “Ph. CEM I”, as mentioned.
• Page 7, line 246: “This decline is best seen in the family made with the photocatalytic cement.”. Comment: Revise sentence. Do the authors have any justification for the observed trend?
• Page 7, line 262: Replace “Ledesma et al [12]” by “Ledesma et al. [12]”.
• Page 11, line 302: “Normally, a higher water absorption by capillarity…masonry wall against external agents.”. Comment: It is true, but the sentence seems lost because there was still no mention to masonry walls. Improve sentence.
• Page 11, line 305: “The results shown in Figure 5 indicate…percentage of RS increases [12].”. Comment: It is not clear why the authors put the reference [12] at the end of the sentence when they are describing their own results. Revise.
• Page 11, (4.4): Some comparative analysis should be carried out between the two types of mortar (Even with similar results). Revise.
• Page 12, line 331: Do you mean FRA?

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

 We thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Photocatalytic recycled mortars: circular economy as a solution for decontamination” (applsci-937108), for publication in Applied Sciences. The authors greatly appreciate each of the comments provided by the reviewers. We have seriously considered of these comments.

As general comments, it should be noted that:

• an English revision was made before the paper was sent. Certificate of English proofread of this paper is attached. In addition, with the changes introduced in this first revision, the paper has been revised again in a second English review. This second certificate is also attached.
• two major changes have occurred in the introduction and conclusions sections, at the suggestion of several reviewers.
• for a higher quality of the images, the graphics entered will be uploaded uncompressed. The authors have taken the opportunity to introduce color in two of these graphs to improve their understanding.
• new bibliographic references have been introduced, so the numbering of these has also been modified.
• The explanations of what have changed in response to the reviewers’ comments are given point by point in the following pages attached in this letter.

We are convinced that the changes made will help improve the quality of the publication and hope that all these changes fulfil the requirements to make the manuscript acceptable for publication in Applied Sciencies.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Auxi Barbudo, Angélica Lozano-Lunar, Antonio López-Uceda, Adela P. Galvín and Jesús Ayuso

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that the paper is nice and interesting. It is potential. But in the present form it seems not well developed in all parts and all sections. Here below my remarks and comments:

1. In the abstract the aim of the research should be clarified and better declare.
2. The introduction section must be improved. Authors must clarify how the problem was solved. What is the main limitation of the current state of art. 
3. Avoid Figure in the introduction section.
4. In the introduction section add some more lines at the end of the section in order to explain how the rest of the paper is structured.
5. I suggest to add a "specific" section on the state of art in order to explain better the contribution and the novelty of the research respect the current literature review.
6. Section 3 is poor. It should be improved. Some more details are required in order to explain how to replicate the experiment.
7. Improve Figure 3 and Figure 4. In the present form their quality is poor.
8. Summarize better the main results of the study. There are a lot of information but not well summarized.
9. I suggest to create two section. One for results and one for discussion.
10. Write a clear conclusion. Define better the main strenght of the research and the main limitation.
11. Explain better how the study advances the field of research respect the present state of knoledge.
12. Define future developments, if any.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

 We thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Photocatalytic recycled mortars: circular economy as a solution for decontamination” (applsci-937108), for publication in Applied Sciences. The authors greatly appreciate each of the comments provided by the reviewers. We have seriously considered of these comments.

As general comments, it should be noted that:

• an English revision was made before the paper was sent. Certificate of English proofread of this paper is attached. In addition, with the changes introduced in this first revision, the paper has been revised again in a second English review. This second certificate is also attached.
• two major changes have occurred in the introduction and conclusions sections, at the suggestion of several reviewers.
• for a higher quality of the images, the graphics entered will be uploaded uncompressed. The authors have taken the opportunity to introduce color in two of these graphs to improve their understanding.
• new bibliographic references have been introduced, so the numbering of these has also been modified.
• The explanations of what have changed in response to the reviewers’ comments are given point by point in the following pages attached in this letter.

We are convinced that the changes made will help improve the quality of the publication and hope that all these changes fulfil the requirements to make the manuscript acceptable for publication in Applied Sciencies.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Auxi Barbudo, Angélica Lozano-Lunar, Antonio López-Uceda, Adela P. Galvín and Jesús Ayuso

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors took into account the comments and suggestions made.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. We are sure that your suggestions have helped to raise the quality of the publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version of the paper is improved. However, I have some other minor remarks.

1. In the abstract it is necessary to specify how the problem was solved. Which method was used?
2. In the introduction section please add some more lines to explain how the rest of the paper is structured (for example: The rest of the paper is structured as follows: section 2 ... section 3...)
3. Justify better the choice of mortars
4. Summaryze in a Table the main results of the research.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We welcome new comments of our manuscript entitled “Photocatalytic recycled mortars: circular economy as a solution for decontamination” (applsci-937108), for publication in Applied Sciences. The quality of the publication has been improved thanks to the contributions provided by the reviewers.

We hope that the new version of the manuscript, after the valuable comments´ reviewers, could be accepted for publication in this special issue.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Auxi Barbudo, Angélica Lozano-Lunar, Antonio López-Uceda, Adela P. Galvín and Jesús Ayuso

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf