Soil Stabilization Using Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC) Derived from Sugar Beet Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Use clear statements in the study's objective. Specify the problem being addressed and the intended benefits of using Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC) for stabilizing subgrades beneath highway pavements. Streamline the introductory sentences for better readability. Clearly state the motivation behind the study and the unique contribution of using PCC in this context.

Provide more details on the experimental process. Describe the steps involved in collecting loess samples, incorporating PCC, and conducting laboratory experiments. This will enhance the clarity of the methodology.

Mention why PCC from Amalgamated Sugar Cooperation in Twin Falls, Idaho, was chosen. Highlight any specific characteristics of this PCC that make it suitable for the study. Be more specific about the results obtained from unconfined compressive strength tests. Include numerical values and a clear comparison between untreated and PCC-treated soils to emphasize the effectiveness of PCC in improving strength.

Expand on the X-ray Diffraction (XRD), Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDX), and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analyses. Explain the significance of the findings from these tests in understanding the composition and microstructure of PCC. Elaborate on the concept of sequestering carbon using PCC. Explain how the carbon content in PCC contributes to the carbon footprint and how the study proposes to address this issue. Clearly state the observed increase in strength and any other beneficial effects of using PCC. Mention if there were any limitations or challenges encountered during the experimental process. Connect the experimental findings with the broader conclusions. Clearly articulate how the observed strengths and characteristics of PCC support its potential use in stabilizing pavement subgrades. Discuss the practical implications of the study's findings. How could the utilization of PCC impact civil engineering projects, and what environmental benefits might arise?

Conclude with recommendations for future research or potential applications of the study's findings. Suggest areas for further investigation or practical implementation.

Specific comments: 

1- Clearly state the motivation of the research

2- Figure 6 is low quality, improve DPi

3- Write down the limitations of this study

4- Reduce the total number of figures to less than 8

5- Write conclusions concisely.

 

Author Response

Please see the atachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered most of the reviewer's comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Soil Stabilization Using Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC) Derived from Sugar Beet Waste" requires significant improvements before publication as scientific article. The Introduction should follow the general approach of engineering articles, coming from a broader overview and end in a focus on the research presented. The current presented introduction with research gap, motivation and scope followed by a literature review, which unnecessary extends the manuscript, is rather unusual. Tables should not be repeated in figures. A direct comparison as figure of the different stabilisation additives on the soil strength would be beneficial. The scientific language of the manuscript needs improvement, which would also improve the scientific merit of the manuscript. The references should be in the right format of the reference guild of the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend that the manuscript is changed to scientific English to improve readability and discussion of results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscripted improved but for an initial research the length is quiet extensive and should be shortened. a reduction can be achieved by removing repeatative statements and condensing the introduction.

Error bars should be added to the figures were average values are shown.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English improved to an acceptable level.

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an interesting research idea but fail to conduct and present a coherent research study. The manuscript gives the impression of being a student report rather than a scientific article. Hence, major improvements are required before publication. The following recommendations should the authors to import some of the main issues of the manuscript:

·         The title should reflect the content of the study.

·         Carbon reduction was mentioned several times but the manuscript failed to address how a carbon reduction is achieved. I was expecting an LCA as evidence to the proclaimed carbon reduction.

·         The introduction requires a thorough literature search and should include the review (which is based on one reference) and research gap addressed in the manuscript. A thorough literature search, which should include precipitated calcium carbon as improvement additive, would help to structure the introduction, as the current manuscript lacks structure.

·         SI units should be used or at least provided in parenthesis.

·         The manuscript has many repetitions and unnecessary information (including Figures of materials and equipment).

·         An inconstancy was noticed with material. The main soil material was obtained from a basement, without further description on how it was obtained and not from a pavement as indicated earlier in the manuscript.

·         The gradation should be provided as table to improve readability.

·         Separation of results, which should be discussed comprehensively.

·         Standard deviations should be added to average values and figures.

·         The discussion lacks the comparison between the different soil stabilisers and potential consequences and neglects previous studies on the topic.

·         The references need improvement. Double reference were noticed and webpage references need access dated.

·         The English of the manuscript requires improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of the manuscript requires improvement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the text mentions that the study aims to investigate the use of PCC as a soil stabilizer for settlement issues, it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive introduction that explains why addressing settlement issues beneath pavements is important and the potential significance of using PCC. Additionally, explicitly state the research objectives. Provide a brief overview of the methodology used in the study. Explain how the tests were conducted, including sample preparation and testing procedures. This will help readers understand the research process. While the text mentions an average increase in the strength of loess samples stabilized with 5% PCC, it would be beneficial to present these results in a more structured and concise manner. Use tables or graphs to display the data for clarity. Expand on the discussion of the XRD, EDX, and SEM analyses. Explain the significance of the findings in relation to the use of PCC as a soil stabilizer. Discuss how the presence of calcium carbonate and silica in PCC impacts its performance. Given that the study identified a carbon content of 9% in PCC, elaborate on the potential environmental implications. Discuss how this carbon content might affect the long-term sustainability and carbon footprint of using PCC as a soil stabilizer. Summarize the key findings of the study and their practical implications. Explain how the results contribute to the understanding of using PCC for soil stabilization and whether it can be a viable solution for addressing settlement issues beneath pavements. Suggest potential areas for future research based on the findings of this study. Are there specific aspects of PCC stabilization that require further investigation? Ensure that you have properly cited relevant sources and studies that informed your research. This adds credibility to your work and allows readers to explore related research. Review the text for clarity and flow. Ensure that each section logically follows the previous one, making it easy for readers to understand the progression of your research.

Other comments: 
Correct numbering of figures, tables, and bullet points.

User correct formatting as per standards of the journal.

Proofread to check for errors.

If possible, add a scale with figures showing a binder and sample.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Reducing Carbon Footprint with Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC) in Geotechnical Applications” investigated utilizing Precipitated Calcium Carbonate, a by-product of sugar beet, as a soil stabilizer for addressing settlement issues beneath pavements. The manuscript provided results of soil samples to highlight the effect of using Precipitated Calcium Carbonate.

 

The manuscript is good in quality and well-written. However, the organization of this manuscript is very weak and should be reorganized. Please consider these comments in the revised version of this manuscript:

1-     Abstract: The methodology used in this manuscript should be highlighted by mentioning the testing procedures to investigate the collected samples.

2-     Section 1.3: The titles and subtitles of the Introduction section should be revised.

3-     Section 2: The main title of a new section should be bold and not italic to help the reader to better understand the manuscript.

4-     Section 2.2: I do recommend providing a chart for the sieve analysis results or listing them in a Table.

5-     Section 2.3: The authors should conduct more tests on the soil samples to better understand their characteristics like confined shear strength and liquid and plasticity limits.

6-     Section 2.4: What were the dimensions of the cylindrical samples? Or the authors should highlight the dimensions of the used Harvard Miniature Mold.

7-     Section 3.1: These analyses and investigations should be highlighted in section 2.

8-     Table 1: This information should be provided in section 2.

9-     Section 3.2.1.1: No need for this sub-title! The authors need to revise the order of the titles and sub-titles.

10- I do recommend combining Tables 2, 3, and 4 in one Table. Also, where are the results of 28 days of compressive strength in Figure 13?