Physical and Mechanical Characterization of Lime Pastes and Mortars for Use in Restoration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting, although focused on local products. The information present in the obtained data could be  more stressed. Could the authors explain better the "Surface area" test and the results  obtanied by this test. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

We want to thank you for the review and recommendations on the document entitled: Physical and mechanical characterization of lime pastes and mortars for use in restoration, in Mexico lime for restoration had not been investigated in depth and it was only empirical knowledge, so the idea arises from wanting to improve the work for restoration knowing the characteristics of the different limes that can be purchased.

We have followed all the recommendations of all the reviewers, helping to improve the quality of the document and make it more rigorous. Some of the changes you will see are these:

• The title has been modified, so that it is not too long.
• The surface area information is expanded upon in the conclusion and restructured in the results.

Frankly, we believe that the article could be a valuable improvement in the field of restoration, offering scientific information about the characteristics of limes and could improve the restoration works.

Sincerely, the authors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1This is a well-written and well-organized article that deals with a very interesting and pratical subject.

 

It is my opinion that the article should be accepted for publication, with a few corrections / alterations or justification of some points.

See the pdf document attached itwh some comments, please!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

We want to thank you for the review and recommendations on the document entitled: Physical and mechanical characterization of lime pastes and mortars for use in restoration, in Mexico lime for restoration had not been investigated in depth and it was only empirical knowledge, so the idea arises from wanting to improve the work for restoration knowing the characteristics of the different limes that can be purchased.

We have followed all the recommendations of all the reviewers, helping to improve the quality of the document and make it more rigorous. Some of the changes you will see are these:

• The title has been modified, so that it is not too long.
• The asbtract was restructured to emphasize the objective and describe the methodology and results.
• The introduction was restructured and rewritten to improve the ideas.
• The research was better described in terms of the limes used in the research.
• We provided information about the aggregate that was used.
• We restructured the surface area section.
• We added images that can contribute to the understanding of the methodology.
• Tables and figures were modified for a better understanding, besides changing the results to Megapascals.
• Conclusions were expanded to better understand the results obtained.

Frankly, we believe that the article could be a valuable improvement in the field of restoration, offering scientific information about the characteristics of limes and could improve the restoration works.

                                     

Sincerely, the authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors are congratulated for the document 'Physical and mechanical characterization of traditional and innovative lime pastes and mortars for their use in restoration', it has a good structure, as well as in the fulfillment of the objectives, references and the practical approach on the analysis and methodology; however, the only pertinent observations that I could comment on are:

Title:

'Physical and mechanical characterization of traditional and innovative lime pastes and mortars for their use in restoration', the title is very long, it is recommended that it does not exceed 14-16 words and that it generates an attractive and interesting narration.

Abstract:

The Abstract it should be restructured and clearly emphasize the objective of the research, it does not describe the methodology and the advantages of the study highlighting its results and conclusions.

Introduction:

New Figure Support us with an image that describes the products used that are part of the study and allow us to evidence the description of this section of the document, as well as the images of the Mexican handcrafted model.

Lines 57 – 66 This information is general, as others have already said, what is your contribution.

Lines 67 – 75 This information is general, as others have already said, what is your contribution.

Lines 76 – 81 This paragraph should be rich in information by the nature of the research, review updated information and new research.

Lines 103 – 114 Review the structure and wording, the paragraph repeats previous ideas. Dilates the reading; it should be revised.

Materials and Methods

Introduce us why you used products from the Mexican market, it is possible that you do not describe brands, but you need to describe the technical specifications of these, this information can be included in "unpublishable information" for the journals.

Describe the method used to obtain semiquantitative data and rely on a national and international standard to validate the variables obtained in the subparagraphs 2.1 Dosage / 2.2 Surface area / 2.3 Flowability / 2.4 Pulse velocity / 2.5 Electrical resistivity / 2.6 Colorimetry / 2.7 Compressive strength.

New Figure Support us with an image that describes the method used.

For methods reviews:

https://doi.org/10.37558/gec.v19i1.814

https://doi.org/10.33349/2005.53.1964

https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5040207 

 

Results

Review the information so that there are repeated paragraphs, or match sections described in Materials and Methods

Try to consolidate the days rather than by type of study, by type of mortar, and perform an illustrated comparative exercise of the advantages or disadvantages of these.

In their study a chronological information of 900 days of trials is described, an illustration of that chronology would greatly support the process of results and discussion of the research.

Figures 7 - 8 – 9 – 10 – 12 – 13 are not a good graphical example of research results, explore with more generous illustrations in description and data.

Conclusions

Please clearly describe this section, taking into account that you should focus on each of the findings of the methodology and the results obtained.

Avoid conclusions that are too general and not documented in the text.

References

Universal context references

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

We want to thank you for the review and recommendations on the document entitled: Physical and mechanical characterization of lime pastes and mortars for use in restoration, in Mexico lime for restoration had not been investigated in depth and it was only empirical knowledge, so the idea arises from wanting to improve the work for restoration knowing the characteristics of the different limes that can be purchased.

We have followed all the recommendations of all the reviewers, helping to improve the quality of the document and make it more rigorous. Some of the changes you will see are these:

• The title has been modified, so that it is not too long.
• The asbtract was restructured to emphasize the objective and describe the methodology and results.
• The introduction was restructured and rewritten to improve the ideas.
• The research was better described in terms of the limes used in the research.
• We provided information about the aggregate that was used.
• We restructured the surface area section.
• We added images that can contribute to the understanding of the methodology.
• Tables and figures were modified for a better understanding, besides changing the results to Megapascals.
• Conclusions were expanded to better understand the results obtained.

Frankly, we believe that the article could be a valuable improvement in the field of restoration, offering scientific information about the characteristics of limes and could improve the restoration works.

                                        

Sincerely, the authors.