Development of sustainable alkali activated composite incorporated with sugarcane bagasse ash and polyvinyl alcohol fibers

Munir Iqbal; Muhammad Ashraf; Loai Alkhattabi; Sohaib Nazar; Jihad Alam; Hisham Alabduljabbar; Ali Husnain

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307103

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 12, 2024
5 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - André Gustavo de Sousa Galdino, Editor PONE-D-24-19129Development of sustainable alkali activated composite incorporated with sugarcane bagasse ash and polyvinyl alcohol fibers.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Iqbal, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 20 2024 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, André Gustavo de Sousa Galdino 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 2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files." Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [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: N/A ****** 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: Yes ****** 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: Manuscript entitled as "Development of sustainable alkali activated composites incorporated with sugarcane bagasse ash and polyvinyl alcohol fibers" discuss about the usage of sugar cane bagasse ash in geopolymer concrete. To improve the quality of manuscript authors are requested to address the following comments 1. Line 16: it is "mechanical and durability properties" 2. Rewrite the research gap 3. Include specific gravity of all materials (fly ash, GBA, etc) 4. Include particle size distribution curve for GBA and fly ash 5. Include characteristics of superplastizer 6. Check line 146. Include sample preparation for SEM 7. Table 4: is it additional water or water? Check it 8. Include information about molarity in the alkalis used in the mix 9. Fig 7 & 8, variations in the graphs are not visible. So check the axis scale 10. Strength activity index and Compressive Strength should not be in separate sub heading. Include any one part 11. Include conclusion about section 4.9 in conclusion 12. To improve the quality of manuscript authors may consider following references a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105235 b. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-015-0390-6 c. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-022-01963-7 d. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00359-x e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02435 f. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107836 Reviewer #2: This study was aimed to study the Development of sustainable alkali activated composite incorporated with sugarcane bagasse ash and polyvinyl alcohol fibers but there are some issues needed to be clarified before it can be accepted for publication 1-This is an interesting study, and the authors present a very substantial study, which the reviewers support for further study. 2- All results should be displayed as figures 3-error bars must be added to the figures. 4-Figures must have high resolution 5-More discussion in depth must be made with the related literature -10.1016/j.scp.2023.101319 -10.1016/j.scp.2024.101512 -10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106661 -10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.134655 ****** 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: No ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307103.r001
Revision 1
12 Jun 2024 Author Response PONE-D-24-19129 DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE ALKALI ACTIVATED COMPOSITE INCORPORATED WITH SUGARCANE BAGASSE ASH AND POLYVINYL ALCOHOL FIBERS. JOURNAL 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 …………………….. Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing valuable feedback. We truly appreciate the effort and expertise that went into evaluating our work. To meet PLO ONE's style requirement, we have carefully reviewed the provided templates and have made the necessary changes to ensure compliance. Regarding file naming, the marked-up copy of our manuscript, highlighting changes made to the original version, has been uploaded as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. As per suggestions, we have also included an unmarked version of our revised paper labeled as 'Manuscript'. 2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files." Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study………………………. Response: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to clarify this. We confirm that all relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Our study involved conducting lab experiments, and the data gathered from these experiments are thoroughly presented in the manuscript in both tabular and graphical form. COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and does the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ________________________________________ 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ________________________________________ 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ________________________________________ REVIEW COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR REVIEWER #1: Manuscript entitled "Development of sustainable alkali activated composites incorporated with sugarcane bagasse ash and polyvinyl alcohol fibers" discuss about the usage of sugar cane bagasse ash in geopolymer concrete. To improve the quality of manuscript authors are requested to address the following comments: 1. Line 16: it is "mechanical and durability properties" Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have corrected the error as suggested. The sentence now reads: "This study aims to develop and enhance the mechanical and durability properties of alkali-activated composites (AACs) by incorporating varying amounts..." Thank you again for your careful review. 2. Rewrite the research gap Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have enhanced our discussion on the latest research developments related to our research area. This comprehensive discussion is included in the second-to-last paragraph of the introduction section. Additionally, in the final paragraph of the introduction, we have provided a concise description of the research gap and explained how our study addresses it. Here is a glimpse of it: The research gap we identified is the unexplored behavior of untreated ground bagasse ash (GBA) in AACs containing fly ash, GGBS, and PVA fibers. Our study addresses this gap by evaluating AACs with varying proportions of untreated GBA which allowed us to identify the optimal amount of GBA for improved mechanical performance and durability. All changes have been highlighted in yellow for your review. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions. 3. Include specific gravity of all materials (fly ash, GBA, etc) Response: Thank you for identifying this critical point. We have now included a separate column for the specific gravity of each material (fly ash, GBA, etc.) in Table 2. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for easy identification. 4. Include particle size distribution curve for GBA and fly ash Response: Thank you for highlighting this important point. Based on your suggestion, we have now included the particle size distribution curve of the GBA in Figure 2. 5. Include characteristics of superplastizer Thank you for raising this important point. As per your suggestion, we have included a discussion on the properties of plasticizers. This addition can be found under the subheading 'Activator and Superplasticizer.' The changes are reproduced below for your convenience: “To induce flowability and reduce slump retention, a sulfonated naphthalene-based water-reducing agent conforming to ASTM C - 494 Type G was used as a superplasticizer (SP). It was a liquid with a dark brown color and had a density of 1.13 ± 0.03 g/cm³. The recommended dosage ranged from 0.3% to 2%. This SP contained no chlorides, ensuring it was suitable for use in reinforced concrete without the risk of corrosion. It had a pH value of 4.8 and a solids content of 30%.” 6. Check line 146. Include sample preparation for SEM Thank you for mentioning this key point. The SEM images included in this manuscript are taken from another research work, and the reference to which is given in the relevant paragraphs. We have now added a separate sentence in the captions stating that the images are reproduced under the CC license from another publisher, and the reference to the original article and publisher is also provided in the caption. Since these SEM images are from another study, it would not be relevant to include the sample preparation details in our manuscript. 7. Table 4: is it additional water or water? Check it We appreciate your careful review and valuable feedback. We would like to clarify that the term "additional water" used in our manuscript was mistakenly used for the total water content, which includes both the water in the alkali activators solution and the extra water added to achieve the desired workability. We have addressed this mistake, and in our revised manuscript, it is now "total water" instead of "additional water." 8. Include information about molarity in the alkalis used in the mix. Thank you for highlighting the importance of the molarity of the activator solution. The molarity of the NaOH solution is 14 moles, and the concentration of sodium silicate is given in weight percent, as detailed in the manuscript under the section titled 'Activators and Superplasticizers.' For your convenience, the relevant text is reproduced below: “In this study, the alkaline activator was prepared by mixing sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) solution and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution. The Na2SiO3 solution comprised of 14.7% sodium oxide (Na2O), 29.4% silicate (SiO2), and 44.1% solids. The NaOH solution with a molarity of 14 was obtained by dissolving solid granulated caustic soda in tap water.” 9. Fig 7 & 8, variations in the graphs are not visible. So, check the axis scale We appreciate your feedback. Regarding your suggestions on Figures 7 and 8, we have scaled down the Y-axis to enhance clarity and depict variations among different mixes more effectively. Figure 7 now starts from 130 mm (previously 0 mm), and Figure 8 starts from 3000 m/s (previously 0 m/s). These adjustments make the variations more pronounced, and we have also added error bars to each graph for improved data representation. 10. Strength activity index (SAI) and Compressive Strength should not be in separate sub heading. Include any one part. Thank you for helping us improve the organization and coherency of our manuscript. We've made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. Now, the discussion on SAI comes after the section covering compression, tensile, and flexural strength. We've also merged the subheadings "SAI" and "percentage variation in strength" into one subheading called "strength development." This change makes more logical sense as it follows the discussion on the strength of the AACs and delves into how the strength evolves over time. Additionally, through SAI values, we can check whether or not the ACCs meet the threshold set by ASTM C618. --- 11. Include conclusion about section 4.9 in conclusion Thank you for bringing up this important point. As per your suggestion, we have included a conclusion about the environmental and economic assessment in the conclusion section of our manuscript. The change has been highlighted in yellow for easy identification. 12. To improve the quality of manuscript authors may consider following references a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105235 b. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-015-0390-6 c. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-022-01963-7 d. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00359-x e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02435 f. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107836 Response: Thank you for guiding us towards these highly relevant articles. We have thoroughly examined each of the mentioned articles and incorporated pertinent information from them into our manuscript. Additionally, we have ensured that all these sources are properly cited. Your insightful recommendation has greatly enriched the depth of our discussion, and we are sincerely grateful for your invaluable assistance.________________________________________ REVIEWER #2: This study was aimed to study the Development of sustainable alkali activated composite incorporated with sugarcane bagasse ash and polyvinyl alcohol fibers but there are some issues needed to be clarified before it can be accepted for publication 1-This is an interesting study, and the authors present a very substantial study, which the reviewers support for further study. Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing valuable feedback. Special Thanks for appreciating our work, means a lot for us. 2- All results should be displayed as figures Response: We genuinely appreciate your keen insight and attention to detail. In response to your valuable suggestion, we have meticulously reviewed our manuscript and ensured that all pertinent results are now presented in graphical form. 3-error bars must be added to the figures. Response: We genuinely appreciate your keen insight and attention to detail. We have thoroughly revised all the figures in the manuscript and added error bars to all the presented graphs. Your suggestion has significantly enhanced the precision and clarity of our data representation, and we are sincerely grateful for your insightful recommendation. 4-Figures must have high resolution Response: We completely agree with your observation. Considering your valuable suggestion, we have redrawn all the figures and significantly improved their pixel quality to ensure high resolution. 5-More discussion in depth must be made with the related literature -10.1016/j.scp.2023.101319 -10.1016/j.scp.2024.101512 -10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106661 -10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.134655 Response: Thank you for guiding us towards these highly relevant articles. We have thoroughly examined each of the mentioned articles and incorporated pertinent information from them into our manuscript. Additionally, we have ensured that all these sources are properly cited. Your insightful recommendation has greatly enriched the depth of our discussion, and we are sincerely grateful for your invaluable assistance.________________________________________ Thanks again for all valuable suggestions. We are open to further suggestions and welcome any additional feedback you may have. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307103.r002
1 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - André Gustavo de Sousa Galdino, Editor Development of sustainable alkali activated composite incorporated with sugarcane bagasse ash and polyvinyl alcohol fibers. PONE-D-24-19129R1 Dear Dr. Iqbal, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, André Gustavo de Sousa Galdino 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Yes 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: Yes 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: Authors had addressed all comments in the manuscript in propert manner. Hence, I accept the manuscript for the publication. Reviewer #2: The authors have responded to the comments of the reviewers satisfactorily.and it can be accepted in the current form ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307103.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - André Gustavo de Sousa Galdino, Editor PONE-D-24-19129R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Iqbal, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. André Gustavo de Sousa Galdino Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307103.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .