Building of the Al-containing Secondary Raw Materials Registry for the Production of Low CO2 Mineral Binders in South-Eastern European Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting paper. The authors have described the protocol for the registry development well.
Just 2 comments:
L42-50: Only 2 references cited for the background information presented in these lines. I suggest that more references should be included here.
Fig 6 needs to be checked for formatting issues and spelling.
Author Response
Interesting paper. The authors have described the protocol for the registry development well.
>>> Thank you very much for reading the manuscript and for your comments and suggestions. We tried to address all of your comments in a best way we can. Please find replies point-by-point to your comments, marked with ">>>" sign. Authors hope that the new registry will become a player in the field of cement industry in the next years.
Just 2 comments:
L42-50: Only 2 references cited for the background information presented in these lines. I suggest that more references should be included here.
>>> Since the emphasis of the paper is not so much on the technical aspects of production of BCSA clinkers, we did not originally included too many references on that topic. Nevertheless, 2 more relevant ones are added, to better support the need of such registry.
Fig 6 needs to be checked for formatting issues and spelling.
>>> One spelling error is corrected, and the size of fonts have been slightly reduced.
Reviewer 2 Report
The project is interesting and with great potential.
I have the following observations:
- The authors argue insufficiently why use ALiCE and no other registries. I propose the authors to consolidate the argumentation both on the specialized component, and especially on the component of the IT structures of the portal. From my point of view, the authors can better argue why their register is better than the others. To argue, authors need to justify the benefits of their register in more detail. In addition, I believe that a supplement to the details of the facilities offered by the register, in particular the IT component, would be useful to readers of the paper.
- The authors present a perspective in the subchapter "Future Plans", but, from my point of view with insufficient justification. I propose to the authors to complete this subchapter with some technical details regarding the future of the register. The authors present the perspective of the register, but less than would be necessary for a subject of such a size. To improve the paper, the authors need to complete this section. If the authors bring a set of clarifications that explain how the register will become a player in the profile market, the paper can be improved. A few sentences in which the authors show how they plan this progress are enough.
- In the chapter Conclusions, the authors provide a description of what they did. I propose to the authors to complete the conclusions of the chapter with some personal elements related to their project. For me, the conclusions of a paper always have a personal imprint of the authors. It is true that in this paper the authors have a well-developed discussion chapter. However, I believe that in the Conclusions chapter the authors can insert more from their perspective. In this way, the work receives a note of additional originality.
Author Response
The project is interesting and with great potential.
>>> Thank you very much for reading the manuscript and for your comments and suggestions. We tried to address all of your comments in a best way we can. Please find replies point-by-point to your comments, marked with ">>>" sign. We are also glad you see the potential in this project and registry, and we hope that it will become a player in the field of cement industry in the next years.
I have the following observations:
- The authors argue insufficiently why use ALiCE and no other registries. I propose the authors to consolidate the argumentation both on the specialized component, and especially on the component of the IT structures of the portal. From my point of view, the authors can better argue why their register is better than the others. To argue, authors need to justify the benefits of their register in more detail. In addition, I believe that a supplement to the details of the facilities offered by the register, in particular the IT component, would be useful to readers of the paper.
>>> An additional paragraph is inserted to the introduction, explaining the need for another registry, which is specially tailored to meet the needs of cement industry (L83-90). Some more information about IT component is added in lines L222-227. However, much more information is given in the freely access reference no. 34, so we didn't explain every detail in this paper.
- The authors present a perspective in the subchapter "Future Plans", but, from my point of view with insufficient justification. I propose to the authors to complete this subchapter with some technical details regarding the future of the register. The authors present the perspective of the register, but less than would be necessary for a subject of such a size. To improve the paper, the authors need to complete this section. If the authors bring a set of clarifications that explain how the register will become a player in the profile market, the paper can be improved. A few sentences in which the authors show how they plan this progress are enough.
>>> Additional text is prepared, describing vision, targets and ways on how to reach this target (last paragraph of the Discussion).
- In the chapter Conclusions, the authors provide a description of what they did. I propose to the authors to complete the conclusions of the chapter with some personal elements related to their project. For me, the conclusions of a paper always have a personal imprint of the authors. It is true that in this paper the authors have a well-developed discussion chapter. However, I believe that in the Conclusions chapter the authors can insert more from their perspective. In this way, the work receives a note of additional originality.
>>> Conclusions were improved by adding some "personal note". We hope that we done according to your expectation.
Reviewer 3 Report
The Portland cement represents one of the main sources of the global CO2 emissions. Thus, research for the use of alternatives to this type of Cement are highly important. This paper is focused on one type of cement made from CO2-poor raw material raw materials and produced at relatively low temperature. The manuscript aims to present the whole process of creating the registry of Al-rich wastes and by-products. The paper is interesting; well written but small deficiencies should be corrected.
Line 39-40. “Since these clinkers contain less carbonate components, the total reduction of CO2 emissions per unit produced is around 20-30% [4]“. Clinker has no carbonate. The sentence should be: “Since raw material to produce the clinker have less carbonate components……”
Line 138. The register should be explained. I don’t understand the utility of some of them (e.g. register nº 10).
Line 328: Your register (https://www.alice-registry.eu/en/map). I consider that to say “Material type: Mineral raw material” is not enough it should be indicated the type of raw material, e.g. bauxite, kaolinite, …
The approximate volume or tonnage should also be indicated.
References must be listed following the indications from the authors guide.
Author Response
The Portland cement represents one of the main sources of the global CO2 emissions. Thus, research for the use of alternatives to this type of Cement are highly important. This paper is focused on one type of cement made from CO2-poor raw material raw materials and produced at relatively low temperature. The manuscript aims to present the whole process of creating the registry of Al-rich wastes and by-products. The paper is interesting; well written but small deficiencies should be corrected.
>>> Thank you very much for reading the manuscript and for your comments and suggestions. We are glad you find the paper suitable for the publication. We tried to address all of your comments in a best way we can. Please find replies point-by-point to your comments, marked with ">>>" sign.
Line 39-40. “Since these clinkers contain less carbonate components, the total reduction of CO2 emissions per unit produced is around 20-30% [4]“. Clinker has no carbonate. The sentence should be: “Since raw material to produce the clinker have less carbonate components……”
>>> This sentence is corrected as suggested.
Line 138. The register should be explained. I don’t understand the utility of some of them (e.g. register nº 10).
>>> An additional explanation is given to better support the selection of registries (L137-139)
Line 328: Your register (https://www.alice-registry.eu/en/map). I consider that to say “Material type: Mineral raw material” is not enough it should be indicated the type of raw material, e.g. bauxite, kaolinite, …
The approximate volume or tonnage should also be indicated.
>>> Thank you for the notice. All of this is already in the register. However, currently there is not enough data that the user is able to see all of the variety of parameters. However, if you log-in to the portal, an upload tool become operational, and there you can see all of these parameters, including those you suggested and many more.
References must be listed following the indications from the authors guide.
>>> References were checked and some of them corrected. However, for some reports we do not know how exactly they shall be cited, so we used "common sense". We hope the form is better now. Few more references were included, so we needed to correct numeration throughout whole manuscript.
