A Review of Sustainable Pavement Aggregates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the article may be interesting to the readership of this journal, the paper may only be considered for publication after the following concerns have been addressed successfully in a major revision:

1. In the abstract, the author should introduce the aspects discussed in the article, not just the necessity of using waste materials.

2. The clarity of the figures in the paper needs to be improved.

3. The author's introduction to the problems in existing research is too brief; it is recommended to provide additional details.

4. It is not appropriate to introduce rubber materials in the section on waste plastics.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for the observations made, they have already been addressed as indicated.

The English was reviewed in a detailed and exhaustive manner.

In the abstract, the author should introduce the aspects discussed in the article, not just the necessity of using waste materials.

A: The aspects discussed in the article have been introduced in the summary in addition to the use of waste materials from line 15 to 22, page 1.

 

The clarity of the figures in the paper needs to be improved.

A: The quality of Figure 1 between lines 140 to 148 on page 3, Figure 2 between lines 223 to 238 on page 5, Figure 3 between lines 279 to 292 on page 6, Figure 4 between lines 318 to 329 on page 7, Figure 5 between lines 350 to 359 on page 8, and Figure 6 between lines 384 to 397 on page 8 were enhanced with specialized editing software.

The author's introduction to the problems in existing research is too brief; it is recommended to provide additional details.

A: Details surrounding the research problem between lines 71 to 72 and 78 to 85 are provided more broadly on page 2.

It is not appropriate to introduce rubber materials in the section on waste plastics.

A: The rubber aggregates have been moved to section 3. Waste materials from line 151 to 202 on pages 4 and 5.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a review of common sustainable pavement aggregates, but the depth of the research is too latent and the logic of the article is not very rigorous, so the manuscript is needed to be deeply revised, and the following are some of the issues and suggestions.

1. The title of the article is ‘Components and Processes’, but the entire article does not focus on a review of the components and processes of sustainable pavement aggregates, so the title of the article needs to be rethought.

2. There is a problem with the table of contents: 2.1, 3.1 and 5.1 all do not correspond to the following. Such foundational problems are intolerable.

3. The abstract is needed to be reorganized and some elements are not well displayed. For example, the conclusion is missing from the abstract. Also, “the use of sustainable aggregates allows exploring other benefits for pavement binders” is not reflected in the text. In short, the entire abstract needs to be rewritten.

4. The text is not very comprehensive in its review of any sustainable pavement aggregates, for example, many of the quantitative data comes from only one article, which results in insufficient representativeness of data, and it is recommended that more data from different articles be listed and compared.

5. The review of each sustainable pavement aggregates in the text just focuses on its properties and advantages, while the presentation of its disadvantages and problems in its use is very insufficient and needs to be supplemented.

 

6. The conclusion section needs to be summarized in the order of the text, and some of the sustainable pavement aggregates mentioned in the text is not summarized in the conclusion section.

7. It is recommended that Figure 1 be presented in the form of a percentage stacked bar chart.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for the observations made, they have already been addressed as indicated.

The English was reviewed in a detailed and exhaustive manner.

This article provides a review of common sustainable pavement aggregates, but the depth of the research is too latent and the logic of the article is not very rigorous, so the manuscript is needed to be deeply revised, and the following are some of the issues and suggestions.

1. The title of the article is ‘Components and Processes’, but the entire article does not focus on a review of the components and processes of sustainable pavement aggregates, so the title of the article needs to be rethought.

A: The title of the article has been modified: A Review of Sustainable Pavement Aggregates. Bounded to solid waste that allows substantial replacement in pavement mixtures. See line 2, page 1.

2. There is a problem with the table of contents: 2.1, 3.1 and 5.1 all do not correspond to the following. Such foundational problems are intolerable.

A: The page numbers in the table of contents have been corrected on lines 34, 36 and 42 on page 2 so that there is correspondence with the titles and subtitles.

3. The abstract is needed to be reorganized and some elements are not well displayed. For example, the conclusion is missing from the abstract. Also, "the use of sustainable aggregates allows exploring other benefits for pavement binders" is not reflected in the text. In short, the entire abstract needs to be rewritten.

A: The abstract has been rewritten, considering the objective from line 17 and the conclusion from line 19 of the present study on page 1.

4. The text is not very comprehensive in its review of any sustainable pavement aggregates, for example, many of the quantitative data comes from only one article, which results in insufficient representativeness of data, and it is recommended that more data from different articles be listed and compared.

A: The text has been supplemented with articles that allow a greater amount of data and its corresponding comparison. Between lines 131 to 138 on page 3, starting from line 202 page 5 and on line 275 to 277 on page 6.

 

5. The review of each sustainable pavement aggregatesin the text just focuses on its properties and advantages, while the presentation of its disadvantages and problems in its use is very insufficient and needs to be supplemented.

A: Each section of the review has been supplemented with data from articles that distinguish disadvantages and problems in the application of sustainable aggregates that arise. Specifically between lines 54 on page 2 to line 275 on page 6.

6. The conclusion section needs to be summarized in the order of the text, and some of the sustainable pavement aggregatesmentioned in the text is not summarized in the conclusion section.

A: The conclusions of line 426 to 476 of page 9 and 10 have been rewritten so that all the sections that talk about different sustainable aggregates are presented in order.

7. It is recommended that Figure 1 be presented in the form of a percentage stacked bar chart.

A:  Figure 1 is presented in the form of a percentage stacked bar graph. It is located between lines 140 to 148 on page 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is a review on the use of waste materials in the manufacture of pavements. Authors do not clear in introduction that they will discuss only about asphalt pavements or they will include concrete pavements also.

The review seems short and needs improvement. During reviewing their manuscript, authors could take the following points in mind.

- Why you do not include references about the use of plastic waste in concrete but you include about the use of other waste in concrete.

- Why you call it “hydraulic concrete”. Do you mean with this term, hydraulic cement concrete pavements? Is it to separate it from asphalt pavements? Be careful here with the use of terms.

- In paragraph “3. Waste materials” there is only one subparagraph. Think again about your paragraphs since plastic waste is also waste materials but you have it in a different paragraph.

- In other studies and similar reviews, a proposed a standardized protocol for the experimental design to facilitate comparability and compatibility of future results of studies on mechanical properties is suggested (DOI 10.3390/buildings12111779).  Think about proposing the same and show the benefits of it.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for the observations made, they have already been addressed as indicated.

The English was reviewed in a detailed and exhaustive manner.

 

The paper is a review on the use of waste materials in the manufacture of pavements. Authors do not clear in introduction that they will discuss only about asphalt pavements or they will include concrete pavements also.

The review seems short and needs improvement. During reviewing their manuscript, authors could take the following points in mind.

  - Why you do not include references about the use of plastic waste in concrete but you include about the use of other waste in concrete.

 A: References have been included on the use of plastic waste in concrete. Between lines 131 to 138 on page 3.

 - Why you call it "hydraulic concrete". Do you mean with this term, hydraulic cement concrete pavements? Is it to separate it from asphalt pavements? Be careful here with the use of terms.

 A: It's because of the translation. In Mexico, concrete is the hydraulic concrete that differs from asphalt concrete, also called asphalt. Observable from line 19 of page 1 and is implicit in the wording between lines 105 of page 3 to line 383 of page 8.

 - In paragraph “3. Waste materials” there is only one subparagraph. Think again about your paragraphs since plastic waste is also waste materials but you have it in a different paragraph.

 

A: For this section, plastic is left out because it is an integral waste that no longer performs its function. Therefore, it was treated individually. Visible from line 104 on page 3.

 In other studies, and similar reviews, a proposed a standardized protocol for the experimental design to facilitate comparability and compatibility of future results of studies on mechanical properties is suggested (DOI 10.3390/buildings12111779).  Think about proposing the same and show the benefits of it.

 

A: The document is a literary review on sustainable aggregates, therefore, in each section there is implicitly the structure of an experimental article that the authors have carried out. However, it was a significant contribution that has been included in the body of the article. The quote from the recommended article is between lines 131 to 138 on page 3.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the paper does not quite match the content; the title is too large and the content does not provide a comprehensive overview of sustainable road aggregates.

2. Incorrect use of terms such as construction and demolition waste.

3. Too many keywords are not representative.

4. The content of the paper is too simple, just a simple list of existing literature, lacking the author's analysis, which is necessary for a review paper.

5. The conclusion part does not reflect the research results of the authors and remains a simple summary.

6. The number of references is also insufficient for a review paper, especially with such a large topic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for the observations made, they have already been addressed as indicated.

The English was reviewed in a detailed and exhaustive manner.

1. The title of the paper does not quite match the content; the title is too large and the content does not provide a comprehensive overview of sustainable road aggregates.

A: The title of the article has been modified to focus on the recycled aggregates in line 2 of page 1.

2. Incorrect use of terms such as construction and demolition waste.

 A: They have been substituted for the term civil works waste. Specifying in the development of the sections where the milling process for roads and the demolition of buildings specified in line 15 page 2 and in 241 to 317 of pages 6 and 7 corresponds.

 

3. Too many keywords are not representative.

A: The number of keywords was revised and decreased and now they are more representative in the study, on line 28 page 1

4. The content of the paper is too simple, just a simple list of existing literature, lacking the author's analysis, which is necessary for a review paper.

A: The author's analysis is expressed in the content of each section of this review article by contrasting the findings of the experts in the development of each section and the recommendations emphasize the study specified between lines 72 to 85 page 2, lines 131 to 138 page 3, lines 270 to 277 page 6 and lines 399 to 423 page 8.

5. The conclusion part does not reflect the research results of the authors and remains a simple summary.

A: The total conclusions were rewritten by ordering them as they are divided in the sections of the revision of lines 427 to 483 pages 9 and 10.

 

6. The number of references is also insufficient for a review paper, especially with such a large topic.

A: An expansion of bibliographic references is provided based on findings on sustainable aggregates referred to in the new title of the review, 10 references of substantial content were added in the development of the content of the paper. Especially between lines 54 to 55 page 2, lines 57 and 58 page 2, lines 71 to 72 page 2, lines 78 to 85 page 2, lines 131 to 138 page 3, and lines 275 to 277 page 6. See the list of references from line 483 to 824 between pages 10 to 17.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised manuscript can be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you for accepting the article for publication. The English language was edited and revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been well revised, and it is recommended to be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for accepting the article for publication. The English language was edited and revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made changes and improved their manuscript. I suggest it for publishing.

Moreover I want to mention to the authors that I understand that this is a review study, nevertheless it could be suggesting a standardized protocol for the experimental design to facilitate comparability and compatibility of future results of studies. In reviewer's opion, currently the non comparability and non compatibility of the results of the various studies, is a main problem for the development. And the review papers could point this out.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for accepting the article for publication. The English language was edited and revised.

 The authors have made changes and improved their manuscript. I recommend it for publication. Additionally, I would like to mention to the authors that I understand this is a review study, however, I could suggest a standardized protocol for experimental design to facilitate comparability and compatibility of future study results. In the opinion of the reviewers, currently, the lack of comparability and compatibility of results from different studies is a major issue for development. Review articles could point this out. Answer: It is essential to research and develop standardized methodologies to evaluate the performance of pavement mixtures in order to understand in detail the properties of each recycled material and their interaction in the mixtures, aiming to guarantee the sustainability and efficiency of recycled pavements in the future. From lines 415 to 427.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is not greatly improved, especially as a review article, and is too simplistic in content; simply listing the literature is not enough. I think the author's understanding of the review article is biased. Although some minor errors have been corrected compared to the previous version, there is still a lack of in-depth analysis and discussion, and some errors such as inconsistent terminology. Therefore, this paper is not recommended for publication in a journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Receive great greetings. and we send the observations recommended for the publication of the article. The English language was edited and revised.

 

The article has not improved much, especially as a review article, and its content is too simplistic; simply listing the literature is not enough.

A: The main objective of the review article is to summarize and synthesize the existing literature on a specific topic, providing readers with a general and up-to-date overview of the state of the art in that field. Despite appearing to simply list the literature, this piece focuses on critically analyzing the gathered information, identifying trends, controversies, and gaps in knowledge. The complexity and level of detail of a review article can vary depending on the context and the target audience. In this sense, it is designed to provide an introduction to the topic for non-experts. Therefore, the article can be equally valuable if it manages to make complex information accessible in a understandable way to a broader audience. From line 104 to 384.

I believe the author's understanding of the review article is biased.

Answer: As an expert in pavement, research on recycled aggregates for pavements is a relevant and highly important topic currently. The use of recycled materials in infrastructure construction not only helps reduce the environmental impacts of the construction industry, but can also result in significant cost and resource savings, although this research does not echo them. However, I have conducted an exhaustive analysis of the available scientific literature on the use of recycled aggregates for pavements, in order to provide a balanced and well-founded perspective. Considering that the interpretation of the results of scientific studies can vary depending on the experience and focus of different experts, slightly different conclusions may be reached based on specific experience and perspective, but it is necessary to have a constructive and evidence-based dialogue in the scientific field in order to advance our understanding and application of sustainable construction materials. From line 458 to 505.

Although some minor errors have been corrected compared to the previous version, there is still a lack of in-depth analysis and discussion.

Answer: Substitute aggregates for pavements have become increasingly important in the construction industry due to the need to seek more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions. The use of recycled materials such as RAP, recycled tire rubber, foundry sand, mining waste, PET, glass waste, and recycled hydraulic concrete has become a common practice to reduce the amount of waste and minimize the environmental impact of pavement construction. Appears in line 44 and from line 400 to 414.

And some errors, such as inconsistent terminology. Therefore, it is not recommended to publish this article in a journal.

 Answer: The use of terms related to sustainability in the construction industry can be varied and often subjective, but this does not necessarily imply a lack of consistency. In fact, the diversity of terms and concepts used in the literature and in practice related to sustainability in pavement design is a demonstration of the richness and complexity of this field of study. Instead of seeing this diversity as a weakness, it should be interpreted as an opportunity to enrich the debate and foster innovation in the construction industry. Sustainability in pavement design is an area of research that is constantly evolving, involving a wide range of technical, economic, environmental, and social aspects. Therefore, it is natural to have a wide variety of approaches and perspectives regarding the terminology used to describe and interpret concepts related to sustainability in this field. Furthermore, the lack of consensus in terminology does not necessarily imply a lack of scientific or technical rigor in research on sustainable aggregates for pavement. Researchers and professionals dedicated to this topic are constantly reviewing and updating their definitions and approaches to reflect advances in science and technology, as well as changing societal demands in terms of sustainable development. From lines 14 to 505.

We hope that if the article is published.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf