Analysis of the Influence and Mechanism of Diatomaceous Earth Internal Curing on the Autogenous Shrinkage and Early Crack Resistance of Cement-Based Materials with Low Water–Binder Ratio

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors are requested to improve the abstract and conclusion as quantitative data could be presented.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made changes to the abstract and conclusion, adding specific data to lines 20-24, 485-486 and 492.

Comments 2: The section "4. Shrinkage-reduction mechanism of DE" appears to be a discussion. Therefore, it should include relevant literature for discussion. If not, it should be numbered 3.6 as part of the Results.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.Therefore, we decided to include "4. Shrinkage-reduction mechanism of DE" as part of 3.6 Results.

Comments 3: Figure 10-11: The provided data inside the photo should be readable.

Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified the image to improve its readability to emphasize this point.

Comments 4: The manuscript should indicate the number of samples tested in each part of the research, with information about their dispersion values.

Response 4: Agree.We have indicated the number of samples tested in each section in the manuscript and added error bars to the data figures.

Comments 5: The author is requested to avoid presenting duplicate data in Table 2 and Figure 3.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out.We have deleted the duplicated data in Table 2.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: It would be appropriate to include a paragraph on the significance research. The topic, although interesting, deals with very widespread subjects and it would be useful to better understand the additional contribution that it brings to the current state of the art;

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have explained it in lines 46-57.

Comments 2: Even if it is not the main goal, some information on lime-based matrices is useful above all for applications to cultural heritage;

Response 2: Agree. We have added some contents to emphasize this point, which can be found on lines 90-93.

Comments 3: What has been debated in this work is also applicable to historical contexts or is limited to modern buildings;

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have done little research on history contexts, but based on other existing articles, this work should also be applicable to history contexts.

Comments 4: The bibliography does not appear to include some important scientific texts which we recommend adding:

Kontić, A., Vasconcelos, G., Briceño Melendez, C., Azenha, M., & Sokolović, N. (2023). ‘“Influence of air entrainers on the properties of hydrated lime mortars.”’ Construction and Building Materials, 403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132968

Diaz, J., Ševčík, R., Mácová, P., Menéndez, B., Frankeová, D., & Slížková, Z. (2022). Impact of nanosilica on lime restoration mortars properties. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2022.03.014

Chen, Z., Liu, H., Xu, L., & Ge, W. (2024). A review of mechanical properties and carbonation behavior evolution of lime mortar for architectural heritages restoration. Minerals and Mineral Materials, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.20517/mmm.2023.26

Ramaglia, G., Lignola, G. P., Fabbrocino, F., & Prota, A. (2017). Numerical modelling of masonry barrel vaults reinforced with textile reinforced mortars. Key Engineering Materials, 747 KEM. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.747.11

Response 4: Agree. We have added the above literature to the manuscript, specifically in lines 526-527 and lines 568-573.

Comments 5: A better description should be added to Table 3.

Response 5: Agree. We have modified the table title of Table 3 to "The pore structure parameters and distribution of mortar with different DE doping amounts at 28d and mortar with 1% DE doping amount at different ages."

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:A global revision of English is recommended

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Later, we will polish the English version.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The manuscript is relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner however the title does not match what was done in the work. The experimental design is not appropriating to determinate de mechanism as suggested in the title. Also, the description of the latest experiments is insufficient. Data is not properly showed, and the statistical analysis is missing. The conclusions are partially consistent with the evidence present bad not match with the objective.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added supplementary descriptions to the experimental plan, conducted further analysis on the mechanism, included variance analysis in the data section, improved the conclusion, and marked all the above changes.

Comments 2: The manuscript presents edition and interpretation problems for example, Line 12 and line 13 contain repeat content. Line 18 has a misplaced period.

Response 2: Agree. We have deleted the repetition in lines 12 and 13, and adjusted the position of the period in line 18.

Comments 3: In figure one, the characteristic structures of diatoms are not observed. Furthermore, it is not clear what type of image this is and how it was obtained. In the results section, the information collected in the table 2 is repeated in the graphs of the Figure 3. Graphical description of mechanism is not clear.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Figure 1 is a picture taken of diatomite through scanning electron microscope. The reason why the characteristic structure of diatoms is not observed is that it has been calcined at 1300℃. In addition, the redundant data in Table 2 compared with Figure 3 has been deleted. An error has been corrected in the legend of the mechanism.