Study on the Improvement of Waterproof Performance of Historical Silt Sites with Silicone Waterproofing Agent

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors report a Study on the improvement of waterproof performance of historical silt sites with silicone waterproofing agent. This paper can be accepted for publication after some improvements as fellow:

* the chemical structure of the used chemical compounds (SMS, POL, SAE) should be added in the text

* the bar error should be added for all graphs

* Fig 4 is repeated two times, please check the number of the figures

* The photostability of the treatment with silicone must be studied

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

Detailed comments:

1.      The English of the text should be checked

2.      The novelty of manuscript should be highlighted more

3.      The state-of-art is totally missing from the manuscript. The author should have added the previous research outputs (conditions/parameter/overall results) by comparing the present one in tabular form to show the viability of the present study (only indicate the no. of References it is enough).

4.      At line 56-57, authors write: “The three types of silicone waterproofing agents have shown excellent waterproof performance in various projects….” – the projects must be indicated. Also, the all three types of silicone waterproofing agents, must be indicated.

5.      Figure 1 is missing from the manuscript. If is only a mistake, the renumbering of figures must be done. Also, Figure 2 is numbered twice

6.      At part 2.1, for sample preparation a schematically diagram must be included

7.      Comparison between the obtained results and measured in this study with other reported studies should be done and included for more clarity (indicate values not just number of reference).

8.      The possible applications of the prepared materials must be included

9.      Kindly cite 5-6 relevant articles from “Coatings”, MDPI in the Introduction part.

10.  Same Reference are very old. The manuscript must contain the relevant information to be attractive for readers (researchers), because science has advanced, and the information indicated in the manuscript is no longer valid. This part should include observed information, noted in the last 10-12 years. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper can be accepted now