A Review on the Performance of Concrete Containing Non-Potable Water
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents an interesting review conducted on the sustainability increase of concrete production, by approaching the possibility and effects of using recycled water for concrete manufacturing. However, few affirmations aren’t supported by the provided references or the experimental results obtained, and many other issues must be addressed. The paper needs minor revisions before it is processed further, some comments follow:
The paper type is review, therefore, the manuscript title should be changed to highlight this information. Please consider changing the manuscript title. Moreover, the reviews are the type of papers with the highest interest for the readers, therefore, by highlighting this particularity, the readers interest will definetly increase.
Introduction section
The introduction section should be significantly improved.
I think that the research was not enough motivated.
Multiple affirmations aren’t supported by the provided references:
“This value can increase to 500 litres per m3 of concrete by considering washing and losses during the production and transportation stages of concrete.” Please introduce the corresponding citation to support the affirmations from the introduction section.
Methodology section
This sentence seems unclear: “2/3 of the studies used 100% of the total amount of water and the others used different ratios (mostly 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%).” Pleare remove 100% from the brackets, those studies are already considered in the part mentioned before (“2/3…. used 100%”).
This section should be improved with a short description of the previous studies, and included in the introduction. There is no method presented in this section.
Wastewater characteristics Section
Figure 1. can’t be read/evaluated in the provided form. Please consider improving the Figure 1 clarity, by providing fewer types of water in multiple images (the overlapped image can be moved to appendix). In the provided form the acidity and few other factors present overlapping for multiple types of water.
Hardened properties Section
Figure 6. Please introduce the value of the compressive strength. In the provided form the influence of water content can’t be clearly evaluated.
Conclusion:
The conclusion section can be improved since fewsubsections were not considered.
Please introduce corresponding conclusions regarding the sections 5.3. Hardened-state density and ultrasonic pulse velocity and 5.4. Water absorption capacity.
Reference section
Please check carefully the correlation between the cited papers and the position of that reference in the manuscript text body. Some affirmations have no background in published literature.
Please consider rearranging the citation into the text. Citation 14 (line 50) appears before citation 10 (line 129).
Please check your citations from the manuscript text body. The citations “[4,5,14–23,6,24–33,7,34,35,8–13]” can be replaced with [4-35].
Line 93. Please check the reference in the text [4,12,35,37,15–19,22,23,28]. 35 and 37 should bbe moved after 28.
The topic of the research is very interesting academically and industrially. However, the work is written in an incomprehensible and lengthy manner, and therefore it is difficult to understand and connect all the parts of the work. Consequently, it is recommended to reorganize the article, write the data clearly and explain the results obtained depending on the affecting factors.
English spelling and grammar check required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please, check the attached files.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and efforts.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Autors,
I enjoyed reading this paper and found the results interesting. The introduction is short but clear and frames the need for this research well. The literature review is clear, and the items are well chosen. Manuscrypt is a review article. Statistical methods were used in the work. The methods are appropriate for the work. The content of the work may prove useful to other researchers. The authors summarize the results of many studies and point to gaps in the existing literature.. Although there is no separate discussion section the article has the correct structure. The discussion was combined with the presentation of the results and this is a good idea. English language and style are fine. Reference to figures and tables has been done correctly. The figures and tables are clear. I also have some critical remarks:
1) Line 99 how does pH affect the results ?
2) Line 121, 122 how much is this increase ?
3) Line 193, 194, 195 how much lower ?
Generally, wherever we talk about changes in value, please state what these changes are (E.g how much %).
To conclude: the article is suitable for publication after minor corrections.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please, check the attached files.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and efforts.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
