Basalt-Fiber-Reinforced Phosphorus Building Gypsum Composite Materials (BRPGCs): An Analysis on Their Working Performance and Mechanical Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should justify, through the studies found, the dosages and the length of the fibers used.

In this sense, it would be convenient for them to add more references to similar studies, with other types of casts or other types of fibers, and to analyze in greater depth, through summary tables, the results obtained to better compare and justify their own results.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, and we did omit to compare the results of this paper with other literature in the previous manuscript. A proper comparison can better demonstrate the scientific value of the manuscript. Therefore, we have expanded the results section of the manuscript and added comparisons with other literature (see  table4).

Reviewer 2 Report

The article entitled “Basalt Fiber Reinforced Phosphorus Building Gypsum Composite Materials (BRPGC): an Analysis on its Working Performance and Mechanical Properties” aims to bring information regarding the mechanical behavior of this type of composites. The experimental program is correct, and the obtained results are, in most of the cases, adequately explained.

Some comments and suggestions are presented below:

1.       The Introduction should be extended with information regarding gypsum binder (obtained from natural gypsum), desulfurization building gypsum and phosphorous building gypsum i.e. raw materials (provenience, composition etc.), manufacture and main properties.

2.       Page 2, rows 67-68 “….high temperature to prepare phosphorus building gypsum, light yellow powders, as shown in Figure 1.” Please clearly specify the thermal treatment temperature.

3.       Define the acronyms when are first mentioned in text  - i.e. PA, PP, PBG …etc.

4.       Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. – write the entire name of the materials not only the acronyms.  Also, in fig. 2 title provide information about the 2 different positions ( a and b)

5.      Page 3, Working performance – present briefly the principle of the methods used to characterize the fresh paste workability according to the mentioned Chinese national standard. Clearly describe how were assessed: ”Fluidity” and “ Setting time”. If the setting time was assessed with Vicat apparatus the presence of BF in the paste (slurry) could alter this property.

6.       Add also information about the mineralogical composition of phosphogypsum and phosphorus building gypsum i.e. X ray diffraction analyses.

7.       The interfacial transition zone between the BF and gypsum matrix plays an important role in the mechanical behavior of these composite; thus, the addition of SEM analyses is highly recommended.

Author Response

Dear ,

Thanks for your comments.This comments were helpful to us in revising the manuscript, and we have carefully considered and responded to each suggestion. A  red-text version of the manuscript indicating where changes have been made is also included with our submission. 

 

 

Comment #1:

The Introduction should be extended with information regarding gypsum binder (obtained from natural gypsum), desulfurization building gypsum and phosphorous building gypsum i.e. raw materials (provenience, composition etc.), manufacture and main properties.

Author Response #1:

We have added some lines 29-39 to introduce information about phosphogypsum and phosphogypsum.

 

Comment #2:

Page 2, rows 67-68 “….high temperature to prepare phosphorus building gypsum, light yellow powders, as shown in Figure 1.” Please clearly specify the thermal treatment temperature.

Author Response #2:

We have revised the original manuscript to “it was then calcined at 145℃ for 6h to prepare phosphorus building gypsum”.

 

Comment #3:

Define the acronyms when are first mentioned in text  - i.e. PA, PP, PBG …etc. 

Author response #3:

We have provided complete information on PBG, PVA, and PP. For example:

phosphorus building gypsum(PBG) on line 13;

polyvinyl alcohol fiber (PVA), polypropylene fiber (PP) on lines 42-43.

 

Comment #4:

Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. – write the entire name of the materials not only the acronyms.  Also, in fig. 2 title provide information about the 2 different positions ( a and b).

Author response #4:

We have supplemented these contents.

 

 

Comment #5:

Page 3, Working performance – present briefly the principle of the methods used to characterize the fresh paste workability according to the mentioned Chinese national standard. Clearly describe how were assessed: ”Fluidity” and “ Setting time”. If the setting time was assessed with Vicat apparatus the presence of BF in the paste (slurry) could alter this property.

Author response #5: 

We have added more specific methods on lines 111-120.

“The flow spread of different groups of PBG was tested using a cylinder with specifications of φ50*50mm. According to the mix proportions for the PBG plaster in 2.2, BF was added to the water and stirred until homogeneous. The PBG was then added and mixed for 60s to obtain the plaster. The plaster was quickly poured into a clean, moist cylinder, and excess plaster was scraped off. The cylinder was lifted to measure the vertical diameter of the disk formed by the expansion of the PBG plaster and calculate the average value as the flow spread of the test group.

The setting time was assessed with Vicat apparatus. The initial setting time was the time that the needle just did not touch the glass floor and the final setting time was the time that the depth of the needle inserted into the slurry was not more than 1 mm.”

 

Comment #6:

Add also information about the mineralogical composition of phosphogypsum and phosphorus building gypsum i.e. X ray diffraction analyses.

Author response #6:

We have added information about the mineralogical composition of PBG,as shown in Figure 2.

 

Comment #7:

The interfacial transition zone between the BF and gypsum matrix plays an important role in the mechanical behavior of these composite; thus, the addition of SEM analyses is highly recommended.

Author response #7:

We have added SEM analyses on lines 261-268,as shown in Figure 12.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting, however major revisions are needed especially due to lack of accuracy by the authors in the first part of the article. Below are the major points:

·         - The introduction seems to be cut off, the article starts with a statement as if something had already been discussed, also the references start at 10 and not 1. Therefore, I would ask for the authors to make a careful review of the introduction by checking that they have included all parts of the article.

·         - The mix design of the samples produced would be necessary, with even numbering by code, so that the reader can adequately and as accurately as possible replicate the best sample observed by the authors.

·         - How was the setting time evaluated by the authors?

·         - In the results and discussion part, a comparison with the existing bibliography, analyzing what goes best and what goes worst, would be useful, especially with regard to mechanical performance.

Author Response

Dear ,

Thanks for your comments.This comments were helpful to us in revising the manuscript, and we have carefully considered and responded to each suggestion. A  red-text version of the manuscript indicating where changes have been made is also included with our submission. 

                                                 

 

Comment #1:

The introduction seems to be cut off, the article starts with a statement as if something had already been discussed, also the references start at 10 and not 1. Therefore, I would ask for the authors to make a careful review of the introduction by checking that they have included all parts of the article.

Author Response #1:

We have added some on lines 29-39 to introduce information about phosphogypsum and phosphogypsum. I'm sorry that we accidentally lost this part in the initial manuscript.

 

Comment #2:

The mix design of the samples produced would be necessary, with even numbering by code, so that the reader can adequately and as accurately as possible replicate the best sample observed by the authors.

Author Response #2:

We have added the mix design in table 3.

 

Comment #3:

How was the setting time evaluated by the authors. 

Author response #3:

We have added more specific methods on lines 111-120.

“The setting time was assessed with Vicat apparatus. The initial setting time was the time that the needle just did not touch the glass floor and the final setting time was the time that the depth of the needle inserted into the slurry was not more than 1 mm.”

 

 

Comment #4:

In the results and discussion part, a comparison with the existing bibliography, analyzing what goes best and what goes worst, would be useful, especially with regard to mechanical performance.

Author response #4:

we did omit to compare the results of this paper with other literature in the previous manuscript. A proper comparison can better demonstrate the scientific value of the manuscript. Therefore, we have expanded the results section of the manuscript and added comparisons with other literature in table 4.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion the changes made to the paper have considerably improved the article.

Author Response

thanks

Reviewer 3 Report

Acceptable

Author Response

thanks