Research on the Water Absorption and Release Characteristics of a Carbonized γ-C₂S Lightweight Aggregate in Lightweight and High-Strength Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript presented interesting results and it needs minor correction before consider it for publication. My comments are following:

1. Abstract too long and I suggest to remove the first three lines there and focusing to present the important findings.

2. Authors should be clear about the aims of this study and limitations. 

3. Please highlight the new of this study compared to litrature.

4. Obtained results should be compare to previous studies with more discussion.

5. Authors should follow the journal formatting of the text, table and figures. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English editing are required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with the use of the lightweight aggregate caronatisation technique and the analysis of its properties - particularly those related to water absorption. It falls within the scope of Coatings magazine and deals with a popular and topical subject. Please find below my detailed comments: 

1. the abstract seems a little too elaborate. I suggest shortening it. 

2. please ensure that Keywords do not repeat words from the title. 

3. I suggest mentioning in the title that the research concerns cement composites - there is currently no information about this, so the reader may think that it concerns only lightweight aggregate.

4. The unit of specific surface area of ​​grains should be cm2/g, not m2/kg (item 2.1.). It would be good to add information about SSA for all powders used in the research (especially since ultrafine FA was used).

5. It is worth adding a description of how the carbonated aggregate was created - i.e. a description of the carbonation process.

6. In Table 3, it is worth adding whether the given values ​​are g/l or maybe g/m3 or maybe another unit?

The research results are presented in a thorough, fully understandable way. The research conducted is interesting and some of it was performed using an interesting method. To sum up, I believe that this article can bring an interesting impact to the journal, which is why I recommend accepting it for publication after minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript appears to be a well-structured scientific paper, covering important aspects of lightweight aggregate research. The study focuses on the water absorption and release characteristics of carbonized γ-C2S lightweight aggregate, which is relevant to the field of construction materials. The researchers have employed various experimental methods to investigate the properties of the lightweight aggregate, including water absorption rate testing, water release rate testing, internal humidity testing of concrete specimens, and free water content testing of cement paste surrounding aggregates.

Having that said, I would like to share my specific comments as follows:

The experiment section could be enhanced by reference to corresponding standards, like ASTM.

Introduction section seems can be revised to make slightly more concise.

I suggest authors provides some more context for Fig.3 describing how it has been produced.

I recommend authors to include some pictures (if available) from tests in the lab to help reader better understand experimental study.  

I recommend authors to improve wording of the section tiles. For example, “2.3.4. Drawing of the Water Release Curve of Lightweight Aggregates” might be replaced with “Development of the Water Release Curve of Lightweight Aggregates. “

I recommend authors include reference for manufacturers mentioned in the manuscript, e.g., Wuxi Yierda Testing Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd., if reader need to know more about their productions.

Line 276, I recommend authors provide more information about test, e.g., type of instrumentation.

I believe it is quite helpful if authors can provide more information about type experiments utilized to estimate water absorption, e.g., Fig. 5 and 6.

 

It would be beneficial to discuss the practical implications of their findings for the construction industry.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf