Compressed Stabilized Earthen Blocks and Their Use in Low-Cost Social Housing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Unified letter case for the title

2.  A little bit of rearranging of the abstract is needed maybe. Abstract is usually divided into four parts WHY, WHAT, HOW, and main conclusions.

WHY → This section usually contains one or two lines mainly defining what is the objective of the study or this work was done.

WHAT → This is the main portion of the abstract. It contains what was done. Like what simulations have been performed what kind of parametric studies are done to support the WHY section.

HOW → In this section you will define how u have achieved the WHAT section points. What kind of methodologies you have utilized to achieve the goals defined in WHAT section?

Usually at the end you will include one or two lines that how it is going to benefit the scientific community or what are the readership of this paper.

3. Provide more information for the Composition of earth or soil based on ISO14688-2019.

4. Why are the words in lines 223 to 226 underlined

5. Please indicate the source of the all figures.

6. Please double-check reference format based on the MDPI requirements

7.  It is hard to follow the text about Dry climate in West Africa: Mali, Senegal and Burkina Faso., please modify.

8. Supplement the limitation of your work.

Author Response

1. Done
2. ABSTRACT has been rewritten
3. ISO14688 is an international guideline that specifies the rules for identification and classification of the soil. The composition of earth or soil based on ISO 14688 is a broader topic which needs a detailed technical description that we regard not so relevant for the understanding of this research article. Although, we have added one sentence to give better clarity on the ISO 14688-2019.
4. Done
5. Done
6. Done
7. One new sentence written.
8. According to us limitations are described.

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer’s Comments
Overall, it is a profound, well-organized, and well-written study. I would like to highlight minor discrepancies for the improvement of the manuscript.
1) In the Introduction, kindly support your argument with references between lines 53-92.
2) Kindly fix the following formatting errors:
• Subheadings, line 559, 563, 573, 580, 589, 599, 603.
• Font style is different and small, lines 724-727.
• Are these bullets?, lines 741-748.
Additional comments are as follows.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
In this study the author has discussed all the options available for compressed stabilized earthen blocks, which provides a low cost. Moreover author also discussed the technical parameters in each manufacturing of blocks and implementation process.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
Yes, the topic is interesting and relevant to the field. This study will help practitioners and researchers working with sustainable building materials and their application in low-cost social housing practice.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The author has covered maximum available options for compressed blocks.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
If possible for author to add the cost comparison.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Yes.
6. Are the references appropriate?
Yes.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures
No comments.

Author Response

1) Done
2) All are done
Additional comments are as follows.
1. Thank you
2. Thank you
3. Thank you
4. We have added some information on cost in section 2.2)
5. Thank you
6. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The article deals with biobuilding, which is currently experiencing a "second youth." There is a need to analyze existing technologies and try to improve them, so the article fits in with current trends.
The article is structurally correct, but needs minor editorial changes, such as:
1. subheadings in section 2.1 are sometimes in italics (line 110) and sometimes straight (117)
2. figure captions are sometimes in italics, e.g. figure 4 and sometimes straight figure 5.
3. photo sources in figure 7 should be in the figure caption.
4. line 724-726 increase the font.

In addition, it would be useful to add a comparison of energy consumption in the production of the analyzed blocks especially the cement stabilized pressed blocks (CSEB) with alternative building materials like burnt brick and hollow block i.e. compare the energy needed to produce the block and CO2 emissions.

Author Response

1. Done
   2. Done.
   3. Done
   4. Done
2. We have added some information in section 2.2

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for your revision.