Characterization and Assessment of Performance of Innovative Lime Mortars for Conservation of Building Heritage: Paimogo’s Fort, a Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- On the other hands, it is well known that cement mortars, must be avoided whenever possible in rehabilitations works, because it favours salt damage due to their content on alkali and sulphate ions, have excessive stiffness and limited capacity to allow drying of the wall, besides having a very distinct final appearance (in terms of colour and surface texture). (Lines 82 – 85).
Recommended: could explain more what means “… have excessive stiffness and limited capacity to allow drying of the wall,”?
- However, in a similar case study, a lime-white cement mortar was applied in two thin coats of 1:1:6 and 1:2:9 (cement: lime: siliceous aggregate, by volume), with acceptable results for the last thirty years [15] (lines 86 and 87).
Recommended: explain which on the first and second coats, if 1:1:6 or 1:2:9?
-The proportions of quick - lime and nanosilica were chosen according to previous research works [17, 19, 20] and previous exploratory tests in laboratory. (Lines 143 and 144) – Recommended: could explains what is this research, fill words!
- “…(40 x 40 x 160 mm3 ) and cured for (line 176)– this number 3 is it necessary?
- Moreover, growing amounts of NS from 3 wt.% to 5 wt.% reduced the water demand, contradicting some research [19,20]. (lines 246 to 247)
Comments: but reduced de flow, is 142mm, what happened?
6- In contrast, in the A+NS mortars, the density varies inversely with the concentration of the nanoparticles while the porosity, in general, presents similar values for both concentrations (lines 288 – 289).
Comments: Somme suggestion why happened this?
- In the figures 4 could comment more about the aspect of this mortars? (line 306)
I suggested that the number 4 and 5, put together! 4. Conclusions, and write the conclusions in the same order of the table 2, the composition, after at the end explain the best composition of mortar to restoring, or the mortar with less with less probability of problems occurring and more durable.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the relevant questions made giving us the opportunity to make our article clearer and with an improved discussion and organization.
Full answers to all questions are provided in the file uploaded next.
The manuscript was revised accordingly, with changes highlighted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well-written and the topic is of great interest. A comparison of different lime mortars for rendering is included. The analysis of adding to these mortars quicklime is novel and not so often studied.
For the sake of curiosity, the following questions are asked. The answer could be included in order to improve the paper.
1) How did you fabricate the mortars with quicklime, did you consider special measurements to control the strong reaction of the quicklime?
2) In paragraph “2.3.4. Hygric properties” the procedure to obtain the capillary water absorption is described. Did you paint the lateral walls of the specimen with wax? How did you obtain the water desorption?
3) In line 44, what does “EEA grants” stand for?
Some typos within the text should be corrected:
1) Line 182: properties instead of “proprieties”
2) Line 196: [38Error! Reference source not found.].
3) Line 453: [57,Error! Reference source not found.].
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for his/her kind words and for the relevant comments made, allowing us to make our article more informative and clear and better organized.
Full answers to all questions are provided in the file uploaded next.
The manuscript was revised accordingly, with changes highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
