Variations in Microstructure and Collapsibility Mechanisms of Malan Loess across the Henan Area of the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yellow River

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is an excellent piece of research, although not very novel. The authors should significantly improve the quality (sharpness) of Figures 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9. Additionally, this reviewer recommends showing a graph of the collapsibility test rather than just a summary of the samples from all the study areas.

It is recommended to mention within the text on page 4 the Chinese National Standard GB/T50123-2019, to which ASTM standard it is analogous; this gives even more visibility to the study.

The methodology needs to be clarified, and the stresses at which the flooding of the sample was imposed to cause the collapse should be more explicit. Explain if the samples were flooded at stresses of 50, 100, 150, 200, 300 and 400 kPa since the methodology for obtaining the collapse is not entirely clear and is one of the keys to the article. Also, report whether the collapse was obtained by a SOT or DOT test. For either method, insert a graph of the methodology used above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the English is very digestible and easy to read, the manuscript deserves an additional review for style and grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employed a combination of indoor confined compression tests, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging, and PCAS software to analyze the microstructure of the loess samples before and after collapse. The investigation revealed the following key insights into the microstructure and collapsibility mechanisms of Malan loess in different regions of western Henan Province. Before the publication of this paper, the author needs to further explain the following issues to meet the publication requirements:

1.The article primarily examines the loess samples from four regions. How has the author considered the representativeness and generalizability of the results? Is there a need to increase the number of samples?

 2.The introduction requires further refinement. The introduction consists of only two paragraphs, lacking a sense of hierarchy. It should succinctly present the innovative aspects of this paper.

3.Table 1: The table should not span across pages.

4.How to calculate the "Average form factor" in the article? This part of the text should be clearly written.

5.The author made a study of loess in four regions, the author should boil down to the general rule, rather than just describing the phenomenon.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the microstructural changes in Malan loess from the Henan area and their implications for collapsibility and structural safety. The use of advanced techniques such as SEM and PCAS for microstructural analysis is commendable and provides deep insights into soil behavior under different conditions. However, there are several areas where the presentation and clarity of the results can be significantly improved. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer presentation of the relationship between microstructural changes and macroscopic soil behavior, as well as a more robust discussion of the implications of these findings for construction practices in loess-rich regions.

1. Abstract: The abstract successfully outlines the purpose and results of the study, but could benefit from a brief mention of the methodological approach to improve clarity and completeness.

2. Introduction (lines 40-62): Briefly discuss the historical context and previous studies. A few sentences summarizing previous research gaps will sharpen the focus and rationale of the study.

3. Methodology (Lines 100-150): Clarify why these specific regions were chosen for sampling and the criteria for sampling depth. A more detailed rationale would help in understanding the representativeness of the samples.

4. Results - SEM Analysis (lines 242-265): The transition between descriptions of the SEM images and their implications for collapsibility is somewhat abrupt. Provide a smoother transition by explaining how microstructural observations lead to changes in soil behavior.

5. Discussion (lines 435-465): The discussion effectively ties the results to practical implications, but it lacks a comparative analysis with other studies. Discuss how these results agree or differ from similar studies in other parts of the world.

6. Figures and tables: Make sure that all figures and tables are properly cited and discussed in the text. Some figures, such as Figures 2 and 3, are mentioned in the text without detailed discussion.

7. Technical terms and consistency: Some technical terms and measurements are introduced without definition or context. For example, the term "probability entropy" is used without sufficient explanation of its relevance to loess collapsibility.

8. Language and grammar: Several instances of awkward phrasing and grammatical errors need to be corrected to improve readability. For example, "Loess exhibits robust stability under low water content conditions, however, its suction" (lines 54-55) should be revised for better flow.

9. Data Presentation: In Section 2.9 (lines 314-400), the presentation of quantitative data could be improved by additional statistical analysis to underscore the significance of observed differences.

10. Conclusions (Lines 429-465): Strengthen the conclusions by explicitly linking them to the broader context of geotechnical engineering and hazard mitigation. A brief mention of possible future research directions would also be beneficial.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality of the manuscript is moderate, but needs improvement to meet the publication standards of international journals. While the technical content is conveyed, several grammatical, syntactical, and lexical choices detract from the clarity and professional tone expected in scientific publications. Addressing these issues is critical to increasing accessibility and avoiding misinterpretation of research findings. Thorough proofreading and language editing by a native English speaker specializing in technical and scientific writing is recommended to address the above issues.

Simplifying complex sentences and ensuring consistent terminology will greatly improve the readability and professionalism of the manuscript.

1. There are instances of awkward sentence constructions that make comprehension difficult. For example, "The collapsibility of Malan loess in western Henan diminishes progressively from west to east" (line 18) could be rephrased for clarity and flow.

The use of the passive voice is inconsistent. It's generally recommended to use the passive voice in scientific writing to maintain an objective tone.

2. Some terms are used interchangeably without clear distinction, such as "microstructure," "pore distribution," and "particle arrangement." Clearly defining or distinguishing these terms could improve the reader's understanding. Technical jargon is sometimes used without definition or context, which could alienate readers unfamiliar with the specific research area.

3. There is inconsistency in the use of technical terms and formatting. For example, units of measure and terms related to geotechnical properties vary throughout the text without standardization. 

4. The manuscript contains several punctuation errors, particularly in the use of commas, which could lead to misreading. Attention to detail in punctuation is necessary to preserve the meaning of sentences. There are typographical errors and some instances of poor word choice that need to be corrected for a professional presentation.

5. Some sections are overly wordy and contain redundant phrases that do not contribute to the overall message. Streamlining the content by removing unnecessary words would improve the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript.

6. Descriptions of processes and results are sometimes vague. More precise language would help to accurately convey the scientific investigations and results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Just one more comment: in the paragraph "The Chinese national standard (GB/T50123-2019) is similar to the American standard ASTM in the process of collapsible compression test for loess. So the results have certain accuracy. "

It is necessary to specify the ASTM standard or standards analogous to the Chinese standard. This will create more interest for foreign colleagues who read the paper and can cite the work.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

   

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx