Experimental Methods to Evaluate the Carbonation Degree in Concrete—State of the Art Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a relatively comprehensive review, it has been well written, and I recommend the acceptance as present form.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Great work. please consider my comments 

11-    I suggest re-arranging Table 3 and discussing the ranges of each indicator separately… The current format is a bit confusing for the reader. 

22-    Section 2.1: elaborate on the reasons behind the different ranges of PH values to indicate carbonation level among different researchers. Is the concrete mix design being the reason? The mix components? The curing? I suggest elaborating to have a full and clear idea of the reasons

33-    Section 2.1 and 2.2 are very connected. Are there any authors who calibrated the PH indicators ranges using “image analysis”???

44-     Introduce section 2.3.1 prior to the section title

55-    I am suggesting defining the XRd, TGA and FTIR in a clearer language … this will help the reader understand the differences between the methods

66-    I suggest having a brief introduction to the differences between carbonated and uncarbonated concrete. In other words, what are the parameters of carbonated concrete that scientists are trying to quantify or measure. It was mentioned that denser matrix is a proof for carbonation but how denser? Is there a specific property of carbonated concrete that has been reported? Summarizing that will make understanding the methods presented clearer

77-    Can you elaborate on how “3.1 phenolphthalein” is different from the “PH indicator section” ??

88-    I suggest having a summary table for all the method at the conclusion that summarize the major advantages and disadvantages

99-    I also suggest having a summary of the research areas that should be further investigated by authors around the world

110- I suggest adding a section that presents the application of these methods on a large volume of concrete (versus lab scale volumes) which will give this paper a more practical edge for industry audience since this topic is hot for environmental reasons.

111- I suggest changing the title slightly to maybe “Methods to evaluate carbonation degree in concrete – State of the Art review”

112- There are some papers in the literature that should be included in this study to have a more comprehensive state of the art review such as “Fundamental understanding of carbonation curing and durability of carbonation-cured cement-based composites: A review” and others

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find enclosed my remarks inserted into the manuscript body text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend the updated draft submitted for publications ...