A Review on the Optimization of the Mechanical Properties of Sugarcane-Bagasse-Ash-Integrated Concretes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Below there are some recommendations designed to improve the manuscript quality:

- the manuscript is a review paper, therefore the title should indicate this information, as in the current form, the title seems to be one of an original article;

- the paper title refers to optimization of mechanical properties, however, in my opinion the section dedicated to mechanical properties and optimization requires more extensive development and discussion;

- conclusions should present also a general closure statement regarding the scope and findings of the review paper

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Below, I'm sending some information to correction. 

The Authors wrote that:

"The article discusses ways to use SCBA, which may pave the way for a more sustainable approach to the construction industry" - it would be more correct to say that "The authors have made an overview of how SCBA can be used" - because in its current form it is doubtful whether the authors have done any research on their own and the form of the articles shows that it is not.

In addition, you did a literature research, but in my opinion the information is not consistent and compatible, and it is certainly not up-to-date.

Below, I'm sending information on the level of (the highest recorded) concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (415ppm!)

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/globally-averaged-co2-levels-reach-400-parts-million-2015

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/atmospheric-co2-reaches-record-415ppm-the-highest-its-been-in-millions-of-years/

When writing about concrete, the authors should take into account a broader and more detailed literature review.

The article should contain information on exactly where waste from sugarcane production is used (from 2021 as widely understood materials for the production of disposable cutlery and dishes that decompose within 60 days, not many years).

I suggest taking into account more information on this topic and on concrete and its microstructure and the similarities in the use of post-production waste in concrete and its potential properties that must be tested over time (durability) anyway due to the mentioned differences in soil, production and processing waste material (including grinding). The Authors have done some good work, but it is not yet ready for presentation. 

Regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments are following:

1. Authors should revise the manuscript title.

2. Manuscript not well organized. 

3. Abstract not well written and should authors show there the levels manuscript will discuss. Also, show provide flow chart. 

4. In introduction, please highlight the novelty and aims of this review paper.

5. Table 1 should remove.

6. In most sections, very poor discuss provided by authors.

7. Authors need to provide some Figures and Tables shown the important findings in literature and positive/negative effect of using this kind of waste materials as cement replacement. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate that the authors have put a great work in revising the manuscript, according to all the reviewers' recommendations. The present form of the review type manuscript can now be presented in the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank You for your work. At tme moment your paper is much better prepared. The scientific quality of the article also increased.

Good luck with future research work,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors unable to improve the manuscript and address the reviewer comments. 

Manuscript still very poor

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors modified the manuscript content.