Effect of Expanded Perlite in the Brick Mixture on the Physicochemical and Thermal Properties of the Final Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript needs to revise by considering the following comments:

 ·         Please discuss the reason why the density was higher at higher temperature and decreased as the temperature decreased? Similarly discuss the absorption results as well.

 ·         It is suggested to separate the figures from tables 7 and 8 and discuss them briefly in the relevant section.

 ·         Figure 6 caption is wrong. Also change the Y-axis title text from uppercase to sentence case. Additionally, change the data range in Y-axis for differentiating properly. At current stage it is difficult to see the variation in the data.

 ·         Methodology part should also improve by providing more information on sample sizes, number of samples, testing durations, etc. It is also recommended to add the photos of the samples for different testing.

 ·         It is mentioned that the bending strength is followed according to the ASTM C778-88. However, this standard is used for compressive (crushing) strength of fired whiteware materials. So, did you perform compression test? As far as I know bending strength means flexural strength which is done on prism sample. Please clarify it.

 ·         Conclusion section should be rewritten by highlighting the major findings from the research. At the moment there is no findings highlighted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very poorly written. It needs to be completely redone.

1. There are a lot of unnecessary words in the title that can be safely removed without losing the meaning

2. Where are the affiliations?

3. Literary review is very small.

4. Why is there not a single numerical result in the abstract of the technical manuscript?

5. Why in the literature review rewrite all the authors of each article?

6. At the end of the introduction, there should be a clearly defined goal and tasks for achieving it. And the conclusions give a numbered list in accordance with the tasks solved.

7. In Figure 1, the separator between the integer and the fractional part should be a period, not a comma.

8. In Figure 2, where the units of measurement are on the y axis

9. Symbols in Fgure 3 are not clear

10. What is Scheme 3? Why not Figure 4.

And many other remarks

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

See the attached document, which is the review for the Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see he attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Author Response

Please see he attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript in satisfactory leve. I have no more comments. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my comments below.

1. The title is very cumbersome. I suggest - Effect of expanded perlite in the brick mixture on the physicochemical and thermal properties of the final products.  

2. The first 3 sentences of the abstract should be significantly reduced.  

3. Lines 38-39 "P. Foraboschi [2] as well as P. Foraboschi and A. Vanin " should be replaced with "Foraboschi and Vanin [2-3] ".  

4. The introduction needs to be greatly expanded through the study of various building materials. For example: - Lesovik V.S. The reducing effect of argon in the plasma treatment of high-melting nonmetallic materials (a review). Glass and Ceramics. 2001 - Fediuk, R.S., Yushin, A.M. The use of fly ash the thermal power plants in the construction. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2015. 93(1), 012070.  

5. At the end of the introduction, it is necessary to set a clearly defined goal and tasks for achieving it. And in the conclusions, give a numbered list in accordance with the tasks solved.  

6. Figures 5 and 7 almost duplicate each other  

7. In figure 8, the lower limit must be raised to 4%. The same is true for the graphs in tables 7 and 9. And also figure 9.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend that the revised version of the article that has been resubmitted is accepted and published.

The Authors have done a good job, since they have considered how I had commented their article and have suitably and carefully addressed all my comments.

Moreover, in the revised version resubmitted, the appropriate structure and language have been used and the presentation is good and consistent, now. In particular, the description of the new methodology is accurate and clear.

Now, the article adds to the subject and the presentation saves the readers’ effort to understand the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

good revision