Effectiveness of Bio-Waste-Derived Carbon Doping on De-Icing Performance of an Electrically Resistant Concrete
, Chingis Daulbayev 3,4, Fail Sultanov 1,2,3,*, Azamat Taurbekov 1,2, Aidos Tolynbekov 2, Mukhtar Yeleuov 2,5, Alina V. Korobeinyk 6 and Zulkhair Mansurov 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Though the proposed work is interesting, the novelty of the work is unclear. Please clarify.
Though Abstract is long, it is incomplete with redundant information (mostly). Hence, it requires modifications.
Introduction section is too short for a journal article. A significant improvement in the intro section is essential to highlight the knowledge gap and need for the present work.
What is the logic in the selection of proposed test matrix? Why only Electrical conductivity and heating performance tests. Please elaborate.
It is not clear why contact angle measurements shown in Figure 8 are important. Please clarify.
Conclusions are not complete. At present, it looks like a mere summary and requires improvement. It is suggested to present both quantitative as well as qualitative findings.
Please specify the limitations of the present work. Also, it is essential to add some suggestions as a scope for further work to overcome the limitations.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1.
Dear Reviewer, thanks a lot for your review, which indicates the weak parts of our article, this is helpful to improve its quality. The article was fully revised in accordance with the following comments:
Reviewer’s Comment: Though the proposed work is interesting, the novelty of the work is unclear. Please clarify.
Author’s response: Thank you for pointing this out. Relevant parts of the paper (introduction in particular) were amended to improve the readers understanding on a novelty an importance of current research.
Reviewer’s Comment: Though Abstract is long, it is incomplete with redundant information (mostly). Hence, it requires modifications.
Author’s response: The abstract was modified in regard to the request, all relevant information was added.
Reviewer’s Comment: Introduction section is too short for a journal article. A significant improvement in the intro section is essential to highlight the knowledge gap and need for the present work.
Author’s response: The introduction section was amended; extra information was added, and authors agreed that current length of an introduction is satisfying lengthwise and with knowledge fulfillment.
Reviewer’s Comment: What is the logic in the selection of proposed test matrix? Why only Electrical conductivity and heating performance tests. Please elaborate.
Author’s response: According to the research objectives we have been looking for the best self-heating thermal performance among all samples tested under investigation. To clarify this, we extended section 3.2.2 of the paper.
Reviewer’s Comment: It is not clear why contact angle measurements shown in Figure 8 are important. Please clarify.
Author’s response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added information which explains what information a wetting contact angles provides in coating and concrete exploitation research. Relevant information was added to description after Fig 8 .
Reviewer’s Comment: Conclusions are not complete. At present, it looks like a mere summary and requires improvement. It is suggested to present both quantitative as well as qualitative findings.
Author’s response: Thank you for pointing this out. According to your comment, the conclusions was rewritten and required information was added to the Section.
Reviewer’s Comment: Please specify the limitations of the present work. Also, it is essential to add some suggestions as a scope for further work to overcome the limitations.
Author’s response: The represented work is focused on material side of self-heating concrete. Out of this it has two major limitations which we are unable to represent within a framework of this paper. First – further work with this material requires long-term investigation (up to two years) to obtain the ex-laboratory results. Second – while we are testing conductivity of filled concrete and its thermal performance, we are not discussing the source of energy, connecting line, energy storage and pavement engineering required for ex-laboratory tests.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have seemingly carried out a very good effort of introducing a sound technique for deicing of concrete roads in very cold climates. However the manuscript terrible suffers from poor English, so much so that this reviewer is unable to make sense of most of the manuscript and hence this precludes this reviewer to give any review recommendations. It is therefor imperative that the authors first get the paper professionally edited and proofread either by a native English speaker or use this publisher's editing services and resubmit the paper so that a proper review is carried out.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 2.
Dear Reviewer, thanks a lot for your review, which indicates the weak parts of our article, this is helpful to improve its quality. The article was fully revised in accordance with the following comments:
Reviewer’s Comment: The authors have seemingly carried out a very good effort of introducing a sound technique for deicing of concrete roads in very cold climates. However the manuscript terrible suffers from poor English, so much so that this reviewer is unable to make sense of most of the manuscript and hence this precludes this reviewer to give any review recommendations. It is therefor imperative that the authors first get the paper professionally edited and proofread either by a native English speaker or use this publisher's editing services and resubmit the paper so that a proper review is carried out.
Author’s response: English grammar and spelling were checked and revised throughout the article. We have also made corrections to the comments of other Reviewers in the article, and added additional information on some points.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
I think this article should be revised in terms of some technical detail. I will give in more detail below.
- The literature review is inadequate and should be revised. Therefore, the introduction should be expanded and improved. The introduction should be contained the other methods and techniques adopted for deicing. Furthermore, to enhance the introductory part, it is beneficial for the reader to characterize the most common cause of concrete cracks as hydration and the solution as a kind of cooling. You may find the following:
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15031129
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104100
2. There are many similar studies in the literature using bio-waste on the deicing performance of an electrically resistant concrete. What is the novelty of this study?
3. The last paragraph of the introduction section should clearly address the research gap, objective, and workflow in detail in the present article
there are many grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the article.
4. For some plots, the quality is very low. Please revise to improve the readability.
5. It is highly recommended to use the flow chart to show the reader the process of how the Synthesis of graphene process from biological waste and incorporated with section 2.1.
6. The article should be thoroughly reviewed, and errors should be corrected.
7. Require more in-depth and thorough discussion on the results obtained.
8. When using the abbreviation, it should be given in the long form in the first place used. Review the use of abbreviations. Moreover, the Nomenclature should be included.
9. The results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications. Please clarify it. Link the results with a real application.
10. According to numbering formatting in all tables, you should use the dot instead of a comma. The comma in numbers is used for four digits or longer to make it easier to read. In comparison, a period or dot is used to separate the integer part from the fractional part of a number.
11. The specifications of the equipment used for the measurement should be displayed in the Table.
12. Develop a table to show a comparison of the current study with others.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 3.
Dear Reviewer, thanks a lot for your review, which indicates the weak parts of our article, this is helpful to improve its quality. The article was fully revised in accordance with the following comments:
I think this article should be revised in terms of some technical detail. I will give in more detail below.
Reviewer’s Comment: The literature review is inadequate and should be revised. Therefore, the introduction should be expanded and improved. The introduction should be contained the other methods and techniques adopted for deicing. Furthermore, to enhance the introductory part, it is beneficial for the reader to characterize the most common cause of concrete cracks as hydration and the solution as a kind of cooling. You may find the following:
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15031129
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104100
Author’s response: Thank you for pointing this out. Articles that you have provided above are related to our work in general terms, however we accepted your point of view and enriched the text of a paper and especially Introduction with better referencing.
Reviewer’s Comment: There are many similar studies in the literature using bio-waste on the deicing performance of an electrically resistant concrete. What is the novelty of this study?
Author’s response: According to your previous comment we have amended great deal of Introduction adding references and in turn now Introduction serve us better in explaining novelties in research objectives of the paper.
Reviewer’s Comment: The last paragraph of the introduction section should clearly address the research gap, objective, and workflow in detail in the present article there are many grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the article.
Author’s response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the last paragraph of the introduction according to your comments. Also, after reviewing the article, all grammatical and spelling mistakes were corrected.
Reviewer’s Comment: For some plots, the quality is very low. Please revise to improve the readability.
Author’s response: the quality and readability of figures were improved.
Reviewer’s Comment: It is highly recommended to use the flow chart to show the reader the process of how the Synthesis of graphene process from biological waste and incorporated with section 2.1.
Author’s response: the flow chart of bio-waste sourced materials was reported earlier and in current publication is referred as ref 28.
Reviewer’s Comment: The article should be thoroughly reviewed, and errors should be corrected.
Author’s response: Thank you for pointing this out. We carefully read the article and corrected the errors found.
Reviewer’s Comment: Require more in-depth and thorough discussion on the results obtained.
Author’s response: In the results and discussion section, we have added additional information to improve the quality of the article.
Reviewer’s Comment: When using the abbreviation, it should be given in the long form in the first place used. Review the use of abbreviations. Moreover, the Nomenclature should be included.
Author’s response: We checked the use of abbreviations in the article. In the article, all definitions of abbreviations are indicated at their first reminder.
Reviewer’s Comment: The results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications. Please clarify it. Link the results with a real application.
Author’s response: According to your comment, at the end of the article, we have added the main limitations of using the developed materials, as well as some suggestions as a basis for further work to overcome the limitations
Reviewer’s Comment: According to numbering formatting in all tables, you should use the dot instead of a comma. The comma in numbers is used for four digits or longer to make it easier to read. In comparison, a period or dot is used to separate the integer part from the fractional part of a number.
Author’s response: Thank you for pointing this out. According to your comments, we corrected punctuation in the table.
Reviewer’s Comment: The specifications of the equipment used for the measurement should be displayed in the Table.
Author’s response: The corresponding table with the specifications of the equipment has been added to the article.
Reviewer’s Comment: Develop a table to show a comparison of the current study with others.
Author’s response: According to your suggestion, we have collected and combined the results of other scientists achieved in the development of deicing materials and added with our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Going through the revised version of the paper, the reviewer feels that the comments provided were adequately addressed and the manuscript has improved considerably.
Hence, the paper can be accepted for publication in the Journal of Coatings.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors effectively address the most of my concerns. The manuscript was significantly enhanced. This article could be acceptable in its current form.
