Sustainable Proposal for Plant-Based Cementitious Composites, Evaluation of Their Mechanical, Durability and Comfort Properties

No.

Section

Comments or suggestions

Answers and/or corrections

1

Title and 5. Conclusions

The authors should rethink the title to reflect the content of the manuscript better or include findings on sustainability for the materials tested.

The authors appreciate your comments and conclusions 6 and 7 were added accordingly

2

1. Introduction

In line 32, the authors refer to the population increase over the last two decades. The figures should be replaced with actual figures and the sentence should be written in the present.

The authors agree with the comment and the correction was carried out between lines 31 and 33.

3

1. Introduction

The introduction should be improved by a more detailed explanation of the impact of using agricultural waste on the agricultural and construction side.

The authors thank the comment, and the paragraph from lines 82 to 85 has been added.

4

1. Introduction

Did the authors consider the long-term effect of using biodegradable materials, like a reduced lifetime of structures, which reduces the benefits of carbon storage and the release of carbon during the degradation process?

A paragraph was added in the conclusions between lines 536 and 541, stipulating it as a challenge for future research.

5

1. Introduction

Could the authors explain what they meant by proper housing in line 88?

The authors thank the suggestion and the explanation was made between lines 91 and 93. In addition, the word “proper” was replaced with “dignified”

6

2. Materials and Mixtures

Could the authors provide the source for the materials (aggregates, cementitious and organic materials)?

The clarification was made throughout the Materials section.

7

2. Materials and Mixtures

Why did the authors use two different meh sets for the aggregate’s particle size classification?

Different mesh sizes were used for the aggregate particle classification; because ASTM was used for the limestone sand and the European standard for the river sand. Nevertheless, Table 3 was replaced by Figure 1 to facilitate the analysis.

8

2. Materials and Mixtures

The mixture composition lacks an explanation of how and why it was selected

The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion and the explanation was made between lines 132 and 134.

9

3. Experimental procedure

Could the authors add the number of replicas per experiment and standard deviation to all figures and tables (only some figures have error bars)?

The authors show appreciation for your suggestion. The number of replicates per experiment was clarified in section 3, and the error bar was added to the corresponding figures.

10

5. Conclusions

The discussion needs clarification on conclusions from the results presented and agreement with the literature.

The results were discussed in detail and in-depth, according to the literature, which supports the conclusions of the research.

11

Figure 8

Could the authors add a linear regression to Figure 8?

The regression line was added to figure 8, which became figure 9.

12

4. Analysis and discussion of the results

It is unclear if the increased water permeability is good, as countries with lower temperatures it is often required to have a low water permeability to ensure a high insulation coefficient.

The authors thank the comment, and the correction was carried out on lines 465 to 468.

No.

Section

Comments or suggestions

Answers and/or corrections

1

2. Materials and Mixtures

Authors gave the information about the mixture. However, authors should add the grading curve in the manuscript.

The authors thank the suggestion and the grading curve was added in figure 1. In addition, the corresponding explanation was made between lines 132 and 134.

2

4. Analysis and discussion of the results

In section 4.2, authors wrote that “The trend of decreasing compressive strength with increasing Vf is maintained as in the flexural behavior. The chemical composition of both, LF and FF, have an important role in their mechanical behavior, their cellulose and lignin composition has an impact on the hydration process and eventually on the development of flexural and compressive strength.” What is the main role of their cellulose and lignin composition? This process is not clear. It should be given more information.

The authors agree with the comment and the correction was made on lines 241 to 247

3

Figure 4

In Fig.4, it should be given average trend line of effect of porosity and density on compressive strength.

The regression lines were added to figure 4, currently figure 5.

4

5. Conclusions

Conclusion should be rearranged

The authors show appreciation for your suggestion and the conclusions were rearranged.

No.

Section

Comments or suggestions

Answers and/or corrections

1

1. Introduction

In Line 31, the world population should be an accurate number from a recent publication or well-known source (for example UNO or WHO) and not from a 6 year old reference predicting the population.

The authors agree with the comment and the correction was carried out between lines 31 and 35, and reference 1 has been changed.

2

1. Introduction

The introduction lacks references to previous work on natural fibre and bio aggregates in concrete. Moreover, the negative impact of agricultural residue was not discussed. The introduction should be extended to precise summarise previous work done in the subject filed and identify the gap in knowledge.

The authors thank the comment, and seven references to previous work on natural fibers and bio-aggregates in concrete were added. The introduction was expanded to discuss these previous works and their contribution to the knowledge of this topic.

3

2. Materials

and Mixtures

It would be good to add unites in the first paragraph on page 3.

The values of the densities shown are relative, so it is not necessary that they have units.

4

Figure 5

Figure 5 requires a distinction (with and without treatment) between the two figures.

The authors thank the suggestion and figure 5 was modified.

5

5. Conclusions

Point 7 in the conclusions can not be drawn form the study presented and should be removed, as the study measured material performance and did not test building physical aspects. In many countries, walls are multilayer composites, which a weight bearing core and additional layers to either side for isolation, instalments, decoration, water vapor barrier and other functions. Hence, the authors should be reminded of the complex structure a wall can have and that changes in the core construction might not affect the housing environment as much as point 7 might indicate

Point 7 of the conclusions was deleted.

6

Title

The title with sustainable proposal is still misleading, as the study focuses on mechanical and hygroscopic aspects of the material and did not perform or references studies on the sustainability aspect of using agricultural residue in concrete mixtures. Hence, please rephrase the title to reflect the study and its outcomes.

The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion and the title was changed.