Eco-Friendly Geopolymer Composites Prepared from Agro-Industrial Wastes: A State-of-the-Art Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript under the title: “Eco-Friendly Geopolymer Composites Prepared from Industrial Wastes: A State-of-the-Art Review” is in line with the ‘CivilEng’ journal. The topic of this is up-to-date and important. However, the review requires significant changes to be considered to publication, including proper structure for the article. The following elements must be improved:

·       Title: This review focusses on GP based on ashes that came from agriculture. It should be marked in the title. Used phrase “Industrial Waste” covers much more materials than is presented in the article.

·       Abstract: Please add the main findings.

·       Introduction: this part should be shortened and more precise. It should be pointed out necessary for the review. On the one side are quite overall information and on the other some detailed research results that should be rather in other chapters. It is necessary to rewrite this part.

·       Figure 1. The ‘Eco-friendly’ and “Sustainable” requires to be explained. It is not clear what these phrases exactly mean.

·       Introduction - The last paragraph of the Introduction part should explain the main aim of the article and stress the novelty aspect given by the review; why is this review needed? What is a difference between this review and other form of last 3 years connected with eco-friendly GP?

·       Chapter 2. The information given in this chapter is an overall overview of geopolymerization; however, there is lack of information for example, on acid-based GP. Not all figures are necessary in this part. This chapter includes only one subchapter about one selected raw material. This chapter should be restructured and divided for some relevant sub-chapters.

·       Figure 5. This figure is of poor quality.

·       Chapter 2.1. Only general information about FA is given, please be more focused on potential consequences connected with the quality of the FA, please see, for example: https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14101954

·       Table 1. Why these references are selected, please give the ‘name’ (types) of FA. References should be given as the last column.

·       Tables 1 and 2 required more detailed comments.

·       Chapter 3: This chapter should be given as a second one. The information needs to be verified. There is a lot of irrelevant information and there is no adequate information on methodology and research methods. In the review article short information about keywords used, databased or general methodology for the literature review should be presented. Why is the given period ignored 2022?

·       Figure 6. Lack of information by 2022.

·       All text: requires editing, including font size, etc.

·       Reference: The style should be unified.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive, fruitful comments and suggestions, which have improved our manuscript's quality. Please find below is the revision report for your attention and perusal. The responses have been arranged based on your feedback in the review process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Eco-Friendly Geopolymer Composites Prepared from Industrial Wastes: A State-of-the-Art Review

This appears to be an interesting paper, but there are several issues including the weak research approach which should be addressed before the paper can be considered further.

I have highlighted these issues below.

1.       The title of the paper is fine, but the abstract is not effective. Apart from the background and finding of the research you need to briefly explain the research approach which you have used in your paper.

2.       I can see that this is mainly a literature review paper, but there are many important research that are ignored in this paper. In the introduction section where you discussed the emissions from cement/ concrete and explain the consumption of concrete, there are several recent studies that are ignored. For instance, the study “An experimental investigation on strength characteristics of concrete using Wastepaper Sludge Ash (WPSA)” indicates that the manufacturing of one ton of cement results in the emission of roughly one ton of CO2 and also emits SO2. Likewise, the study “Developing a Sustainable Concrete using Ceramic Waste Powder” discussed that Due to several advantages, a concrete requirement is expected to be growing and it is estimated that this requirement will become double in the next 30 years. I think incorporating such current studies, in your paper will improve the engagement with current and relevant literature and fully justify the issue which you are investigating.

3.       The presentation of the paper needs to be improved. Rather than taking a screenshot, make sure you write the equation in text properly. For instance, see figure 5.

4.       I do not think that section 2.1 on fly ash is fully relevant here.

5.       It is not clear which databases have been used. These should be clearly mentioned. Neither inclusion nor exclusion criteria are mentioned. It is also not clear that how the finally selected papers were analysed. Not sure if you have used any PRISMA guidelines. Ideally this should be a systematic review, therefore, I suggest to review this article and try to develop your research approach properly “Key factors influencing the implementation of three-dimensional printing in construction”.

6.       After your research methodology, you should write the results and analysis section which should be based on your data collection. General discussion does not add value.

7.       How you arrive on figure 7 – the composition of Mineralogical oxides in residual ashes. Was this part of the research approach.

8.       The same question for figure 9. At least you have provided reference/citation here so that mean you are taking from the literature review, but I still do not understand the purpose of this figure as it can be simply stated in two lines.

9.       How you arrive on figure 10.

10.   The conclusion is not effective. I do not understand the contribution of this paper, as it failed to provide clarity in several places. Make sure you state the knowledge contribution effectively, along with the limitations of your research and key areas of future research.

11.   Considering several issue in the review article, it can not be called as “A State-of-the-Art Review”.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your positive, fruitful comments and suggestions, which have improved our manuscript's quality. Please find below is the revision report for your attention and perusal. The responses have been arranged based on your feedback in the review process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript under the title: “Eco-Friendly Geopolymer Composites Prepared from Industrial Wastes: A State-of-the-Art Review” was significantly improved. Authors answer for all comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing my previous comments. The methodlogy still need some adjustment and citations of relevant studies. I therefore, suggest to cite and reference the paper “Key factors influencing the implementation of threedimensional printing in construction” which has used the same research approach. Have relevant studies citied/referenced in your methodlogy will make your reserch approach more compelling.