A Review of the Combined Effect of Fibers and Nano Materials on the Technical Performance of Mortar and Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is a review article to determine the combined influences of fibers and nanomaterials on the mechanical and durability properties of cementitious materials. The investigation is nice, and the authors appropriately analyze the results. However, significant concerns still exist within the manuscript, which should be improved by the authors before publications, as follows:

• Title: Please mention the phrase “A-review” within the title.
• Abstract: Please put some quantitative results at the end of the abstract. Also, the reviewer recommends rewriting the abstract to precisely mention that the authors are using a literate experimental database in this study.
• As this is a review article, writing the introduction should be different from a normal research paper. The reviewer strongly recommends rewriting the introduction, considering different subsections, and drawing some figures to analyze the details of the collected databases such as publication years of the references, list of sections considered in this study, and percentage of nanomaterials based on types, and percentage of fibers based on types.
• Table 1: Please change the analysis approach. Instead of the number of studies, please use the percentage of investigations.
• Page 2, Line 77: Please provide a specific table to separately list all references' details and test names of each reference.
• Figures 1 and 2: What is the ratio of NS/BF? This ratio uses nan silica and basalt fiber content, which is wrong in scientific papers in this field. Please remove this ratio throughout the manuscript, or mention an accurate reference within the text to explain where this ratio was used to analyze the results.
• The reviewer recommends adding a section regarding “bond strength” in this study.
• Please provide a specific table at the end of this review study to summarize the optimum dosages of each nanomaterial and fiber.
• The authors should put references in the captions of these figures: Fig. 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 28, 31, and 32.
• Please provide a section before the conclusion section to summarize the literature findings and determine research gaps in this field for future studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Enclosed please see the revised version of the manuscript and response to your remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is worth noting that the presented review is soundly written and logically strictly sustained. The topic presented in the review is of interest to a wide range of readers, especially those whose activities are related to the development of new materials and composites based on them.

When reading the text of the article, I would like to make a number of comments and suggestions.

1. Abstract. One word is enough.
2. Introduction. It seems to me that it would be more correct to rewrite the introduction in the spirit of a review, rather than a research article with a clear presentation of its results.
3. Abbreviations of materials are given in the tables, and although the authors give their decoding, it is still better to give their full name in the texts of the tables.
4. Page 12, line 37. Part of the text has been crossed out.
5. Page 14, lines 348-350. The proposal has been crossed out.
6. The data figures show the names of the authors and the date. I think that it is more appropriate to provide a reference to the number in the list of references of the review.
7. The authors should pay special attention to the Conclusion part. Various text fonts. Moreover, this part should be precisely the conclusion of the entire review, and not just a statement of facts. At this stage, this part of the article looks like a manual for a technologist.

My general opinion about manuscript ID: sustainability-1555405: possible to publish as a article after minor revision.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Enclosed please see the revised version of the manuscript and response to your remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors performed a comprehensive review of the nanomaterial/fiber composites used in construction materials. Specifically, a group of 55 studies (both experimental and simulation studies) focus on studying the effect of fibers and nanomaterials on technical performance of construction materials are reviewed and their key findings are summarized. In general, the nature of materials selected, the dimensions and content percentage of fiber and nanomaterials all influence the mechanical, fresh, durability as well as other property of the composites. The introduction, discussion and summary are complete in this paper. I have below questions:

1. Line 150. Regarding the “ratio” of fiber and nanomaterial mentioned in this article, is it the weight ratio or the volume ratio? This needs to be clarified since in table 2 and table 3 there are different definitions for “content %” of fiber and nanomaterial in the composites.
2. According to table 1, there are 13 different fibers and 10 different nanomaterials identified in the 55 studies, while table 2 and table 3 include 9 fibers and 9 nanomaterials. Some candidates’ parameters are missing here: Linen fiber, flax fiber, etc.
3. For Figure 4a - 4d, there should be more information provided in the captions: what are the materials here, what is the conclusion, etc.
4. There are many acronyms used in this article, and their full names are provided in different sections. I would suggest adding a summary table which includes all the acronyms and their full names in one place.
5. The whole article should be proofread again:

Line 140. The definition of “SCM” is missing.

Line 183. Typo: “rduces”

Line 263. Typo: “????”

Line 307. Typo: “which occurs”.  Same for Line 348.

Line 672. Typo:”Reinforcesd”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Enclosed please see the revised version of the manuscript and response to your remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The title "The combined effect of fibers and Nano materials on the tech-nical performance of paste, mortar and concrete: should be modified.

Author Response

According to the reviewer's comment, the manuscript has been modified.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

Although the reviewer was not convinced about the response to Comments 6 and 7, this study can be accepted given the valuable efforts of the authors.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer’s general comment and would like to thank for the pertinent queries that helped further improving the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version is much improved. My only concern is about the references:

Reference 4 information is missing.

Reference 69 lacks the journal information. 

Reference 73 is a retracted paper! 

I would suggest reviewing and revising the whole references section carefully.  

Author Response

This study is a review  Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is much improved. My only concern is about the references:

 

Reference 4 information is missing.

Reply: corrected

 

Reference 69 lacks the journal information.

Reply: corrected

 

Reference 73 is a retracted paper!

Reply: It has been removed

 

I would suggest reviewing and revising the whole references section carefully.

Reply: All references have been revised again and considered sustainability style.