Polymeric Waste from Recycling Refrigerators as an Aggregate for Self-Compacting Concrete
, Josimara Aparecida da Silva 2, Matheus Brendon Francisco 1, Vander Alkmin Ribeiro 3, Michel Henry Bacelar de Souza 4, Patricia Capellato 2, Marcelo Anderson Souza 5, Valquíria Claret dos Santos 4, Paulo Cesar Gonçalves 4 and Mirian de Lourdes Noronha Motta Melo 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to explain the nonlinearity in Figure 9. Physical characterization tests of SCC with PW: (a) Specific gravity for SCC with PW;
discontinuity between M0, M5, M10, M15 and M20
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we authors of the article entitled: Polymeric waste for recycling refrigerators as aggregate for self-compacting concrete, thank you for your attention and opinion on our study.
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
The manuscript "Polymeric waste from recycling refrigerators as aggregate for self-compacting concrete" by L. R. Roque-Silva, J. A. Silva, M. B. Francisco, V. A. Ribeiro and M.L.N.M. Melo is touching upon an interesting topic as it promotes the sustainable construction materials. In the manuscript, self-compacting concrete with partial replacement of the coarse aggregate by polymeric waste from the recycling of refrigerators was investigated. Tests were carried out in the fresh and in the hardened concrete state. The usage of different waste materials in the concrete together with the prediction of their characteristics is an important research topic. From my point of view, the manuscript fits into the scope of the journal and the topic is relevant to the readers. The subject addressed in this manuscript is worthy of investigation, however, the manuscript has some problems shown as the following, which need to be revised.
a) The paper contains several grammatical errors that need to be corrected.
b) Please consult the journal's reference style for the exact appearance of each article section.
c) The keywords need to be reworked and should not use non-specific terms
d) Incomplete references and some others as well.
e) Poor resolution of figures- please work on the figures to look nicer.
Specific comments:
Section “Abstract”:
The abstract needs to be reworked to give a detailed description of the aim, methodology, and contributions of work. The “Guide for authors” pack of SUSTAINABILITY journal should be followed more precisely. It is descriptive-please add more quantities to the abstract.
Section “1. Introduction”:
The introduction is not coherent that it fails to tie up the problem being addressed in the manuscript The introduction does not give enough insights for the reader to grasp the problem, the approach, and the importance of the work. The introduction should show the positioning and contributions of the work. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals
Please eliminate those multiple references. After that please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate ALL the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterizing each reference individually. This can be done by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning.
The literature review is not adequate. The Literature review needs to include several relevant publications in the paper. The authors need to critique those closely related publications against their own research. It is good to tabulate the past research work to make the contributions of this paper clearly.
Section “2. Materials and experimental program”:
Define the standards used for the performance of the experimental work in the text not only refer to them.
Section “3. 3. Results and discussions”:
Please provide more detailed reasoning behind the behavior you have observed from the specimens. The details should include the rigid numbers or percentages.
Section “4. Conclusions”:
The contributions in the conclusion need to be revised by giving more detailed results that arise from the paper. In addition to summarising the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. Future research opportunities of this paper are not clear. The contributions in the conclusion need to be revised by giving future research opportunities that arise from their paper, which is absent in the study.
Section “Acknowledgements”:
The “Acknowledgment” section is the format of Funding Sources and not Acknowledgements.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we authors of the article entitled: Polymeric waste for recycling refrigerators as aggregate for self-compacting concrete, thank you for your attention and opinion on our study.
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a good paper, however, figure 5, 8,9 and 10 is drawn very bad. I will highly recommend authors to draw it again.
Put scale in figure 7.
There is a repetition in of figure 9.
Please proof read again as there are several typo in the article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we authors of the article entitled: Polymeric waste for recycling refrigerators as aggregate for self-compacting concrete, thank you for your attention and opinion on our study.
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article by Roque-Silva et al. describes a method to use polymeric waste from the recycling of refrigerators as the replacement of the coarse aggregate for the preparation of self-compacting concrete.
After reading the paper, I regret to consider that the information provided is not satisfactory for a scientific paper. The main limitation is the lack of proper characterization of the polymer waste, which is a mixture of different parts of the refrigerators (it seems not only come from different polymers but also metal parts, ceramic fillers present in the plastic parts, etc.) and it is only determined by FTIR. Indeed, most refrigerators use PS and ABS and these polymers were identified. Further details should be then needed to merit a scientific publication, otherwise it is difficult to withdraw conclusions.
The article can perhaps be of interest in the sister journal Applied Sciences.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we authors of the article entitled: Polymeric waste for recycling refrigerators as aggregate for self-compacting concrete, thank you for your attention and opinion on our study.
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The quality of the paper has improved. In general, the authors took into account the reviewers' specific comments. Although, there is an urgent need that the authors respond to the comments point-to-point - as the general comments were not taken into the account in the rewritten manuscript.
Before the publications, the following comments should be carefully considered by the authors:
a) The paper contains several grammatical errors that need to be corrected. The authors should consider professional language support.
b) The keywords need to be reworked and should not use non-specific terms.
c) Bibliography style is not consistent several times, please check the reference section carefully and correct the inconsistency!
d) Poor resolution of figures- please improve the quality of the figures and provide figures with better resolution. Special attention should be taken into account and additional work should be taken in the figures captionalization and numbering!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer "Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The information provided is not sufficient for a scientific paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer "Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
