The Effect of Alcohol Compound on the Solidification of Magnesium Oxysulfate Cement-Boron Mud Blends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The essay is a complete study on the effect of alcohol modifiers on the hydration of magnesium oxysulfate cement-boron mixtures, characterization, and microstructure.

• The title does not need to mention KH-550, alcohol compounds are enough. KH-500 appears too product-specific.
• The abstract supports that magnesium oxysulfate cement-boron mud mixture is more conductive to solidification of boron in boron mud than ordinary Portland cement. However, the study does not show results in Portland cement. The abstract should be modified to correspond better to the content of the study.
• The discussion of Figure 2 must be modified to include more the effect of the content of the mixes on initial and final settings. We need to know why there are little changes in mix 3 to 7.
• In Section 3.3 on XRD, we would like to see references to the literature.
• Figure 5 must be discussed according to other results from the literature.
• In the conclusion, it would be good to mention what the cement-boron mud blends can be used for.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is devoted to the study of selected aspects of solidification of magnesium oxysulfate cement-boron mud blends. It contains results of studies on the influence of selected organic admixtures on the solidification process. The article is of average quality in terms of content, language and editing. The most important shortcomings are discussed below.
In the introduction, the authors write that magnesium oxysulfate cement is a new type of magnesium-based cement and then cite an article from 70 years ago. This is a serious inconsistency.
In section 2.2 at the bottom of page 3, the authors give two concentrations of NaOH solution of 1 mol/L and 0.001 mol/L then later in the sentence attribute a lower pH (11) to the former solution than to the latter (14). This is a clear error.
The series designations in Tables 2 and 3 could have been somewhat more closely related to the composition of the mixtures prepared. The use of consecutive numbers with asterisk and hash makes the analysis of the results presented later in the article difficult and forces the reader to look again and again at Table 2 or 3.
In Chapter 3.1, there is a sentence at the beginning which is structured as follows "(...) a retarder (...) which can be used as a retarder". If a substance is a retarder, it means that it is used as such. Hence, the above sentence is logically incorrect.
Further on in this chapter, the authors first write how much longer the start and end setting times of compound #2 are than #1, and then state that they have not obviously changed. I suggest you opt for one of these versions. In addition in the table the mixtures are labelled as 1# and 2#, and in the text as #1 and #2.
In section 3.2, the authors list by how much the strength of each series increased after the admixtures were applied, then write that this increase is due to the fact that the admixtures are organic compounds. This reasoning looks unfinished, as no link is shown between the increase in strength and the organic nature of the compounds added. Nor is any mechanism indicated for the increase in strength when organic compounds are added that would distinguish them from inorganic compounds.
In Figure 6, the images labelled a and b are swapped places, and besides, there is no explanation in the figure description as to what is in Figure 6a and what is in Figure 6b.
In summary, the article needs at least corrections in the places described above and review for possible typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf