Investigation of Physical and Chemical Properties of Bitumen Modified with Waste Vegetable Oil and Waste Agricultural Ash for Use in Flexible Pavements
, Fatih İrfan Baş 1,*, Özgen Yalçın 2 and Emre Kuşkapan 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is interesting and timely work. Some comments:
1. Title: it is not clear which kind of biomass was used in this study, animal-based, wood-based, agriculture-based? Please point it out.
2. Are the biomass and waste vegetable oil used as alternative of binders or the rejuvenator?
3. Abstract: only stability, penetration value, flash point, and softening point temperature are not enough to evaluate the performance properties of modified binder, at least the rheological properties should be addressed. Please explain it.
4. Abstract: can 10 minutes also applied in the field construction?
5. Figure 1: it is important to highlight that almost 100% of asphalt binder source rely on import in Europe.
6. Introduction: biomass is an alternative of filler or binder?
7. It is not clear on the drawbacks of previous and the knowledge gaps the authors want to fulfill.
8. Figure 4 is not clear, the content of additives should be included.
9. What is the future perspective?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLooks good to me.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to Reviewer 1 for valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. It is mentioned in the abstract that the optimum parameter level is 4% oil and 0% ash, what is the significance of adding ash?
2. The form of reference in the article is wrong, and the number cannot be used as the subject, such as "[16] modified bitumen using", "[17] used agricultural ashes consisting", "[18] added peanut shell ash", etc., please revise the whole text.
3. Please revise or delete Figure 12 and do not use compressed images.
4. The analysis and discussion part of the article looks more like an experimental report, lacking in-depth mechanism analysis.
5. The conclusion section is very confusing, please streamline it.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to Reviewer 2 for valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper describes an experimental laboratory study concerning waste vegetable oil and waste agricultural ash in a bituminous mixture. The study is based on physical and chemical properties evaluations on bituminous binder. The topic of the paper is significant and aligned with the circular economy. Bio-based materials are used in the modification of bituminous binder. The paper has scientific interest for readers. The topic is not original, but some innovation is found regarding the materials.
The manuscript is more focused on studying bitumen than the bituminous mixture. Marshall characteristics of the bituminous mixtures are important, but more is needed for a complete performance evaluation. The paper will be more attractive without the Marshall study. If not, more details are needed about the bituminous mixture properties regarding its performance. The methodology must be improved.
Some specific comments are listed below.
1 - What is the importance of Table 3 regarding the information shown in Figure 9? There is a duplication of information.
2 - What are the groups in Table 5?
3 - Units in the vertical axle of some charts are missing (e.g., Figure 5, Figure 6).
4 - The manuscript does not contain a section on results and discussion. Section 2 needs to be shorter and better organized. The numbering of sections needs to be corrected.
5 - Some units are missing (e.g., height, weight, VMA) in Table 6.
6 - The names of the authors should be explicit in the text. The indication of the reference number is not sufficient.
7 - The conclusion section must describe the study's limitations and present future works. I recommend simplifying the section by selecting only the main conclusions. The findings of the study should be included in the results and discussion.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to Reviewer 3 for valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the authors' hard work, almost all my comments were revised. No further review process is needed. Hope you can buy the DSR and other essential equipment soon.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLooks good to me.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to Reviewer 1 for their valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAdditional comments regarding some figures:
Figure 1 - The inclusion of the EAPA logo is not adequate. The figure should be modified.
Figure 5/Figure 6/Figure 7/Figure 8/Figure 10/Figure 11/Figure 12/Figure 13 - The chart's title should be removed because it duplicates the caption. The title is not necessary.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to Reviewer 3 for their valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
