Unlocking the Potential of Biomass Fly Ash: Exploring Its Application in Geopolymeric Materials and a Comparative Case Study of BFA-Based Geopolymeric Concrete against Conventional Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is acceptable in current form.

In this manuscript, the authors introduce the source of biomass and the possible use of  biomass-fly-ash.

Further, the CO2 emissions from concrete and geopolymer were also been compared.

Hence, I think the material is enough to support "Biomass-fly-ash-based Geopolymer Concrete: A review and comparative case study".

Maybe, it could be improved to add more comparative case study in this work.

 

Author Response

The authors are thankful for the nice and valuable advice.
According to your suggestion, We added more comparative case studies to the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript will require major elaboration. At first reading it, it gives impression of being a literature review chapter of master thesis or project proposal submission, though without structure, goal and objectives. Just briefly summarized general information. Though title of paper bring high expectations to receive well structured up to date information considering that so much research is already published. Please think through what for you write this paper and what is added value it has to readers and resubmit it.

Resubmission required

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review the paper. We appreciate your feedback and value your input. While we understand that you had some concerns and expressed negative comments, we would like to address them and assure you that we take all feedback seriously in our continuous efforts to improve the paper.

Thanks to Reviewer 3, we improved the quality of the paper enormously. We hope the newly revised paper will change your mind about publishing in the journal. 

Once again, we appreciate your feedback and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments are following:

1. The manuscript' title should by revise by authors.

2. Tha abstract section not well written and presented. First two sntences too long without meaning. I suggested the authors re-write the abstarct section with show the envieonmental problems of traditional cement. Focus more about fly ash and its effect on sustainability. More obtained rsults from litratures should be summary (presented abstarct very weak).

3. In introduction section, more details should be providing with hifhlight the study' gap and novelty as well as the outline of this study (Please provide the flow chart).

4. Very limited data provided by authors (more descussion should be provide in section 2 to 5.

5. Authors should compare the obtained results from different studies and provide them opinion.

6. Following up comments, please re-write the conclusion section.

 

Manuscript not well organized and very limited data presented there. Manuscript recommended for publication after major revision.

English language of this manuscript should be improve by authors. Manuscript not well written, organized and reviwed the previous studies as well as very limited data presented there. It's recommended for publication after major revision. 

Author Response

The authors are thankful for the reviewer that helped us a lot to improve the quality of the paper.

Comment below;

1. The manuscript title has been revised.
2. The abstract has been re-written.
3. In introduction section more information, the novelty of the study and an outline flow chart has been given.
4. section 2-5 was re-arranged, and more information was provided.
5. The obtained results compared with many literature works.
6. The conclusion has been re-written entirely.
7. Language proof has been done and the section and flows of topic re-organized.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is an accessible source of knowledge about geopolymer concrete and CO2 emissions related to the production of these materials and comparison to conventional concrete. The article describes various sources that can be used during the production of these materials (fly ash), including coal combustion, various types of biomass. The advantages and disadvantages of using biomass- and coal-fly-ash in the concrete structure were briefly presented (Table 1). The article is written in an accessible language, it is easy to read. Personally, I regret that the work is only a review, the comparative case study is quite poor. The authors cite a total of 140 items (including Internet sources). There is no shortage of the most important references, such as to the works of J. Davidovits. I believe that the work can be published without major changes.

Author Response

The authors would like to express their sincerest gratitude for the reviewer's thoughtful and positive comments on our manuscript. The reviewer's kind words and feedback have provided a tremendous boost to our confidence and motivation.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, no further remarks

Ok

Author Response

The authors appreciate the second evaluation from the reviewer, and we are pleased to inform that the manuscript language has been proofread by the professional service named ''Scribendi''.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors not improve the manuscript and still very weak. Authors should inlude more literature, figures and tables.

Please refer to my comments in first report. 

 

 

English should be improve. 

Author Response

The authors appreciate for the reviewer 3 for critical remarks, below authors would like to state the comments and corrections accordingly;

1. The manuscript has been proofread by the paid professional proofreading service named 'scribendi', all language mistakes and unclear points have been revised by the professional service.
2. The authors added more literature work and more tables, and figures to the manuscript in sections 2 and 3.
3. From the remarks of the first report or first round, we revised the title of the manuscript. It is colored and commented.
4. The introduction part rearranged and added more literature. The study flow, and novelty of the study has been added according to reviewer 3 remarks. It is all colored and commented in the manuscript.
5. Section 2 has been reorganized and more literature, figure and table has been added according to reviewer 3 remarks. Fly ash photo from biomass combustion power plant added. Table of toxic heavy metals from coal-based fly ash and biomass fly ash added.
6. Section 3 has been re-organized and more literature work has been added. A table of biomass based latest literature added. Table 5,Figure 4-5, More literature work and their experimental work with table and graphs has been added.
7. Section 4 has been reorganized and more comparison work has been stated. Their calculation for CO2 emission and cost of preparation has been compared with our case study data according to reviewer 3 remarks.
8. Conclusion part reorganized according to reviewer 3 remarks.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript well revised