PONE-D-22-09721Investigation of the Effectiveness of CFRP Strengthening of Concrete Made with Recycled Waste PET Fine Plastic AggregatePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Qaidi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The reviewers asked for major revisions especially in the structure of the manuscript and grammar. The changes suggested by the reviewers are given below.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 10 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yasir Nawab, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article titled “Investigation of the Effectiveness of CFRP Strengthening of Concrete Made with Recycled Waste PET Fine Plastic Aggregate” deals with an attempt to develop a structural-grade concrete containing plastic waste aggregate with high proportions of substitution and confined with CFRP fabrics. Samples were manufactured by using material extrusion techniques. The research is interesting, and methodology used is relevant. Discussions lacks rigorousness and novelty is not clearly stated. Therefore, in current form, the article cannot be recommended for publication. It is recommended to accept the article subjected to following minor revisions.

1. Literature review is good but citation of articles on concrete composites made with different type of fibers as well as with different techniques are not many. Authors need to provide updated state of the art. They need to add some article reporting mechanical behavior of different fiber/fabric reinforced concrete composites with different techniques: for example:

Umair M, Khan MI, Nawab Y. Green Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Composites. Handbook of Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites for Energy and Environmental Applications. 2020:1-32.

Khan MI, Umair M, Shaker K, Basit A, Nawab Y, Kashif M. Impact of waste fibers on the mechanical performance of concrete composites. The Journal of The Textile Institute. 2020 Nov 1;111(11):1632-40.

2. Authors need to add one paragraph summarizing summary of literature and research gap.

3. Authors need to state Originality of the article clearly.

4. There are a lot of interesting results, but discussions lack rigorousness. Authors needs to further strengthen this aspect.

5. The data tables from 7 needs to explained for clarity.

6. To support the results in Figure 5~6, Authors needs to provide explanation while citing similar behavior from literature.

7. Overall English needs a revision.

Reviewer #2: Comments for Author:

The present work is good regarding the Investigation of the Effectiveness of CFRP Strengthening of Concrete Made with recycled Waste PET Fine Plastic Aggregate.

The research is important, but there are still some flaws. The paper is recommended to be published after major revisions as follows:

1. There are too many language errors in the manuscript, on almost every single page!

These are unacceptable for a scientific paper. Please carefully proof read the whole paper to correct all the language errors.

2. Abstract should be revised. It must provide the general description and conclusions of the results

3. The whole introduction should be revised again.

(a) In literature review try to add some previous studies related to the enhancement efficiency the compressive behaviour of composites reinforced with synthetic waste.

(b) Explain some abbreviations such as CFRP at least in beginning.

(c) Please try to clear the research gap and objectives of present study.

(d) Why did you mention … Plastic waste; Green concrete….in keywords. As there is nothing green in present research. PET are synthetics.

4. Materials and method section is so weak. Carefully revise this section and logically explain all the materials.

(a) Portland cement and sand required the chemical and physical composition, also mention the name of company.

(b) SEM or microscopic morphology is required for fine aggregate and coarse aggregate shapes...either they were angular, round or any other shape etc.

(c) Sand density and physical properties?

(d) In the caption of Table 3 author has mentioned

Sieve analysis of PET and fine aggregate

Whose properties are these?..PET or Fine aggregate? or Either for both?

(e) Table 4...please explain the information regarding CFRP sheet? Either PET or what

(f) The information is missing about the sheet of CFRP in materials section. Please mention the source

(g) The information is missing about the resin in materials section. Please mention the source.

(h) The information of diagrams and tables is missing in text.

5. In section 2.2… It is better to mention the whole curing time of samples.

6. Try to mention the exact days for the minimum strength of the samples. They are either 90 or more than 90..?

7. Add the schematic diagram of complete methodology for the development of composites.

8. Try to label the Figure 4 with (a), (b) and (c) parts and also mention in caption.

9. In section 3.1 Effect of PET on strength reduction.

The author claims that, the substitution percentage of PET particles increases, the compressive strength reduces. You have given the reasoning about the reduction in strength. I will suggest to add some references from previous studies to reinforce your reasoning.

10. To justify the reasoning given in below paragraph.

This strength reduction can be explained as…… This strength reduction can be explained as

The SEM or microscopic analysis are required.. or author must support the reasoning with the references from previous research works.

11. In section 3.2….Second paragraph..1st sentence..

Try to explain complete paragraph and revise in a better way.

And if it is feasible …Please mention the observation of first sound with load. (at which load you observe the first sound).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Azam Ali

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: reviewer comments.docx

Investigation of the Effectiveness of CFRP Strengthening of Concrete Made with Recycled Waste PET Fine Plastic Aggregate

PONE-D-22-09721R1

Dear Dr. Qaidi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yasir Nawab, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The author has tried to address all the comments . The article can be publish in present form with minor proofreading.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No