Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0338119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0338119

Hydration product phase evolution and mortar strength development in alkali-activated slag and fly ash systems

Zhuo Jin 1, Aimin Gong 1,*, Yier Huang 1, Yulin Peng 2, Kang Yong 1, Shanqing Shao 1
Editor: Parthiban Kathirvel3
PMCID: PMC12677521  PMID: 41343502

Abstract

Alkali-activated geopolymer materials, derived predominantly from industrial byproducts such as fly ash and slag, represent a sustainable alternative to Portland cement for applications including anti-seepage grouting, road construction, and high-strength concrete. This study systematically investigates the hydration behavior of slag and fly ash activated by NaOH and Ca(OH)₂ at dosages of 4%, 6%, and 8%, with the constraint that the initial setting time is ≥ 45 min and the final setting time is ≤ 600 min. The mechanical properties of the resultant mortar systems were evaluated using standardized strength testing (ISO method) at curing ages of 3, 7, and 28 days. The phase composition and microstructural evolution of hydration products were characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), backscattered electron image analysis (BSE-IA), and isothermal calorimetry. These analytical techniques provided comprehensive insights into the morphology, phase distribution, porosity, and hydration kinetics of the reaction products. The results revealed distinct activator-dependent reactivity trends: NaOH demonstrated higher efficiency in activating slag, whereas Ca(OH)₂ was more effective in promoting the hydration of fly ash. Optimal hydration was achieved with 8% NaOH for slag and 6% Ca(OH)₂ for fly ash, leading to enhanced reaction completeness, increased hydration product formation, denser pore structures, and significantly improved mechanical properties. Alkali-activated slag exhibited substantially greater strength enhancement than fly ash. The 28-day compressive strengths reached 35.94 MPa and 6.65 MPa for slag- and fly ash-based mortars, respectively, with corresponding flexural strengths of 10.23 MPa and 1.92 MPa. These findings demonstrate that the properties of alkali-activated geopolymer materials can be effectively tailored through the strategic selection of alkaline activator type and dosage. This study provides both theoretical insights and technical guidance for the development of sustainable alkali-activated geopolymer materials in construction applications.

1. Introduction

Cement stands as one of the most extensively consumed construction materials worldwide. However, its conventional production process is associated with substantial carbon emissions and high energy consumption [1,2]. These challenges not only impose severe environmental impacts but also hinder the green transformation and sustainable development of the construction industry [3]. In this context, geopolymers have emerged as a promising sustainable alternative. First proposed by French scientist Joseph Davidovits in 1978, this class of materials utilizes alkaline activators to dissolve and polycondense industrial solid wastes (e.g., slag, fly ash) or natural aluminosilicates (e.g., metakaolin), which possess pozzolanic or latent hydraulic activity, to form a solid cementitious matrix [46]. In comparison to ordinary Portland cement (OPC), alkali-activated geopolymer binders offer a distinct advantage: they can be synthesized without the energy-intensive high-temperature clinker calcination step, leading to a significant reduction in carbon emissions [7,8]. As cementitious materials, they exhibit a suite of desirable properties, including low heat of hydration, excellent binding capacity, and superior long-term durability. Notably, these materials can maintain their structural integrity and performance over extended periods, even under complex and aggressive environmental conditions [911]. Owing to this combination of environmental and technical benefits, geopolymers demonstrate considerable application potential across a diverse range of fields. These include conventional construction and transportation infrastructure, as well as specialized domains such as hydraulic and marine engineering, structural repair and strengthening, 3D printing of building components, and environmental remediation applications like the immobilization of heavy metal contaminants.

Granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS), a by-product of ironmaking [12], is primarily composed of CaO, SiO₂, and Al₂O₃. Fly ash (FA), generated during coal-fired power generation [13], consists mainly of SiO₂ and Al₂O₃. This chemical composition imparts significant pozzolanic activity to both GBFS and FA, making them valuable supplementary cementitious materials [14,15]. Despite their beneficial properties, the current comprehensive utilization rate of these industrial byproducts remains suboptimal. Therefore, a systematic investigation of their performance in alkali-activated systems is imperative. Such research is crucial for facilitating the large-scale valorization of these solid wastes, mitigating the environmental footprint associated with their stockpiling, and establishing a robust scientific foundation for their targeted engineering applications. Among the multitude of factors influencing the properties of alkali-activated cementitious materials, the type and dosage of the alkaline activator are recognized as being of paramount importance [16]. Consequently, numerous researchers have extensively studied the performance of GBFS and FA under alkaline activation. For instance, Sun et al. [17] and Li et al.[18] demonstrated that both GBFS and FA exhibit high reactivity under alkaline activation, creating favorable conditions for the development of mechanical properties; however, the type and concentration of the alkaline activator significantly influence their mechanical performance. Liu et al.[19] found that NaOH effectively activated FA, achieving a compressive strength of 4.21 MPa in cement-fly ash matrices, indicating NaOH’s distinct advantage in enhancing FA reactivity and improving the mechanical properties of cementitious materials. Qiao et al.[20] reported that, compared with Na₂SiO₃, NaOH resulted in a denser microstructure and significantly higher strength in cement-fly ash-based cemented matrices, with the most pronounced improvement observed in the 28-day compressive strength. Ge et al. [21] observed that the compressive strength of FA-based matrices activated by a mixed solution of NaOH and Na₂SiO₃ increased continuously throughout the curing period, albeit at a gradually decreasing rate. Han et al. [22] showed that partially replacing cement with GBFS improved the microstructure of cement mortar, reducing microcracks and pores, enhancing the matrix’s splitting tensile strength, and improving the ductility and deformability of cement concrete. This suggests good compatibility of GBFS in cementitious systems and its ability to enhance mechanical properties through microstructural refinement. Yu et al. [23] investigated the effects of NaOH and sodium silicate (water glass) on the compressive strength and chloride ion erosion resistance of slag concrete. Their results indicated that specimens activated by sodium silicate exhibited higher compressive strength than those activated by NaOH, whereas NaOH-activated specimens demonstrated superior resistance to chloride ion erosion. Zuo et al.[24] demonstrated that the reaction degree of slag gradually increased as the NaOH content increased from 4% to 8%.

In summary, current research on alkali-activated geopolymer materials has primarily focused on the strength development trends of specimens activated by single or compound alkaline activators, with relatively limited investigation into the evolution of hydration product phases. Given that the type and dosage of activators significantly influence the performance of alkali-activated cementitious systems, this study investigates the phase evolution of hydration products in slag/fly ash-based systems under varying dosages of NaOH and Ca(OH)₂. The work specifically aims to optimize alkaline activator dosages to enhance the mechanical properties of alkali-activated geopolymer binders, thereby providing a theoretical foundation for the resource utilization of these industrial by-products.

2 Experimental materials and methods

2.1 Raw materials

The raw materials used in this study are shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Raw materials.

Fig 1

Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GBFS): S95-grade GBFS (conforming to Chinese standard GB/T 18046) was supplied by Gongyi Longze Water Purification Material Co., Ltd. Its physical properties included a Blaine specific surface area of 429 m²/kg, a density of 2.8 g/cm³, and a particle size distribution predominantly in the range of 1–100 μm. Its chemical composition meets the S95 standard requirements, with a fluidity ratio ≥ 95%, a 7-day activity index ≥ 75%, and a 28-day activity index ≥ 95%. Detailed chemical compositions are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Chemical composition of fly ash and slag.

Constituent Content (wt%)
CaO SiO2 Al2O3 SO3 Fe2O3 MgO Na2O K2O other
Slag 34 34.5 17.7 1.64 1.03 6.01 5.12
Fly ash 4.5 45.1 36.8 1.2 0.85 11.55

Fly Ash (FA): Class F fly ash (according to ASTM C618) was obtained from Gongyi Run Refractories Co., Ltd. It has a density of 2.1 g/cm³ and a particle size distribution similar to that of the slag (1–100 μm). Detailed chemical compositions are presented in Table 1.

Alkaline activators: Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH): Solid pellets with a purity ≥ 98% were sourced from Tianjin Zhiyuan Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd. An 8 mol/L concentrated solution was prepared by dissolving the pellets in deionized water 24 hours before use to dissipate the heat of dissolution. The pH of the prepared solution was 14.3.

Calcium Hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂): This activator was prepared by slaking “Hui Hui” brand quicklime (CaO) powder with deionized water. Chemical titration confirmed that the resulting slurry contained 93.45% Ca(OH)₂ by mass. The slurry was also prepared 24 hours in advance and had a pH of 12.4.

Fine Aggregate: ISO standard sand conforming to the specification of ISO 679 was used.

Mixing Water: Deionized water was used for all mixtures and solution preparations.

2.2 Mix proportions and specimen preparation

2.2.1 Mix proportions.

To eliminate the influence of heat released from the alkaline activators on the test results, the NaOH solutions and Ca(OH)₂ slurries were prepared 24 hours in advance and stored in sealed containers at room temperature (23 ± 2°C). The mix proportions for all tested pastes and mortars are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2. Mix proportions.
Sample Material Alkaline activator type Activator Dosage (wt%)
4SN Slag NaOH 4
6SN Slag NaOH 6
8SN Slag NaOH 8
4SC Slag Ca(OH)2 4
6SC Slag Ca(OH)2 6
8SC Slag Ca(OH)2 8
4FN Fly ash NaOH 4
6FN Fly ash NaOH 6
8FN Fly ash NaOH 8
4FC Fly ash Ca(OH)2 4
6FC Fly ash Ca(OH)2 6
8FC Fly ash Ca(OH)2 8

Note: The numbers 4, 6, and 8 denote the dosage of alkaline activators as a percentage of the total mass of cementitious materials. S represents slag, F represents fly ash, N denotes NaOH, C denotes Ca(OH)₂. For example, 6SN indicates the addition of 6% NaOH to slag, and other notations follow this convention.

2.2.2 Specimen fabrication and testing.

2.2.2.1 Determination of setting time: The initial and final setting times of the cement pastes were determined using a Vicat apparatus (ISO standard) following the Chinese National Standard GB/T 1346–2011, which is analogous to ASTM C191. The water demand for normal consistency was first determined for each mixture. The cement paste was then prepared using 500 g of cementitious material (slag or fly ash) and the corresponding amount of water (including both the mixing water and the water introduced with the activators). The mixing procedure consisted of an initial 120 s of low-speed mixing (140 ± 5 rpm), a 15 s pause for scraping down the bowl, followed by 120 s of high-speed mixing (285 ± 10 rpm). The mixed paste was immediately cast into the Vicat ring mold and placed in a moist curing cabinet (20 ± 1°C, relative humidity ≥ 90%). Measurements commenced 30 minutes after adding water. The initial setting time was defined as the time when the needle penetrated to a depth of 4 ± 1 mm from the bottom of the mold. The final setting time was recorded when the needle made an indentation not exceeding 0.5 mm in diameter on the paste surface. Only mixtures meeting the practical criteria of an initial setting time ≥ 45 min and a final setting time ≤ 600 min were selected for subsequent mortar testing.

2.2.2.2 Mortar strength testing: Mortar strength was determined according to GB/T 17671−2021 (Method for Testing Cementitious Sand Strength – ISO Method) for slag-based and fly ash-based systems. Based on Table 2 proportions, constituent materials were mixed in a cement mortar mixer, then cast into 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm prism molds using a ZS-15 ISO-compliant mortar vibrator. Nine specimens were prepared per mixture. After 24-hour ambient curing (23 ± 2°C), specimens were demolded and transferred to a standard curing chamber (20 ± 2°C, RH ≥ 95%) until testing ages (3d, 7d, 28d). Flexural and compressive strengths were determined using an automated testing machine. Specimen fabrication and testing equipment are illustrated in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Mortar specimen and testing equipment.

Fig 2

2.2.2.3 Microstructural Analysis (SEM, XRD, FTIR, BSE-IA): Following the compressive strength tests, fragments from the crushed specimens were immediately immersed in absolute ethanol for at least 72 h to terminate hydration. The samples were subsequently dried in a vacuum oven at 60°C for 24 h and then prepared for the following microstructural analyses:

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM): Dried specimen fragments with fresh fracture surfaces were mounted on aluminum stubs, sputter-coated with a thin layer of gold to enhance conductivity, and examined using a Hitachi S-3400N scanning electron microscope operating under high vacuum conditions.

X-ray Diffraction (XRD): The dried fragments were ground into a fine powder using an agate mortar and pestle and passed through a 75 μm sieve. XRD analysis was performed using a MiniFlex600 diffractometer (Rigaku) with Cu-Kα radiation (λ = 1.5406 Å). Diffraction patterns were collected over a 2θ range of 10° to 90° with a step size of 0.02° and a scanning speed of 2°/min.

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR): The same powdered samples prepared for XRD analysis were used for FTIR characterization. Spectra were acquired using a Nicolet iS50 FTIR spectrometer (Thermo Scientific) via the KBr pellet method, scanning a wavenumber range from 525 to 4000 cm-1 with a spectral resolution of 4 cm-1.

Backscattered Electron Image Analysis (BSE-IA): This technique was used to characterize the pore structures of the 28-day cured mortar specimens. The acquired BSE images underwent grayscale calibration and median filtering for noise reduction. A thresholding procedure was then applied to segment the pores (dark regions) from the solid phases, enabling quantitative porosity analysis.

2.2.2.4 Isothermal calorimetry: The hydration heat release of the paste samples was measured using an eight-channel TAM Air isothermal calorimeter (TA Instruments, USA) maintained at a constant temperature of 20.0 ± 0.1°C. Approximately 5 g of freshly mixed paste was promptly transferred into a sealed glass ampoule and placed in the calorimeter. The heat flow rate and cumulative heat evolution were monitored continuously for 72 h. Data analysis was performed using the instrument’s proprietary software.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Setting time

The setting time is a critical parameter governing both the practical workability and the development of mechanical properties of cementitious materials. The influence of NaOH and Ca(OH)₂ on the setting behavior of the slag-based and fly ash-based systems is shown in Figs 3 and 4, respectively. A comparison of these figures reveals that the setting times of the slag-based system were substantially shorter than those of the fly ash-based system across all tested activator dosages. This indicates more rapid initial hydration reaction kinetics in the slag-based system under alkaline activation. Furthermore, a distinct activator-dependent trend was observed: NaOH markedly accelerated the setting of the slag-based system compared to Ca(OH)₂, whereas it considerably prolonged the setting of the fly ash-based system. These results demonstrate the higher sensitivity of slag to NaOH activation and the preferential response of fly ash to Ca(OH)₂ activation.This divergent behavior is primarily attributable to the role of the Ca/Si ratio. In the high-calcium slag-based matrix, the introduction of additional Ca²⁺ via Ca(OH)₂ further elevates the Ca/Si ratio. An excessively high Ca/Si ratio can inhibit the dissolution of key reactive phases from the slag particles, thereby retarding the setting process. In contrast, for the low-calcium fly ash system, which is inherently calcium-deficient, the increased Ca/Si ratio provided by Ca(OH)₂ facilitates the precipitation of strength-giving hydration products such as C-(A)-S-H gel, thereby accelerating the setting reaction. The observed dependence of setting behavior on the Ca/Si ratio is consistent with findings reported by Zhao et al. [25].

Fig 3. Setting time of slag.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Setting time of fly ash.

Fig 4

As is evident from Fig 3, increasing the dosage of either NaOH or Ca(OH)₂ from 4% to 8% led to a progressive reduction in the setting times of the slag-based system. This trend demonstrates that the enhanced alkalinity provided by both activators promotes the dissolution of reactive silicate and aluminate species from the slag, consequently accelerating the nucleation and growth of hydration products and leading to faster setting and hardening. As shown in Fig 4, a similar trend was observed for the fly ash system activated by NaOH, where higher dosages (4% to 8%) resulted in progressively shorter setting times. Conversely, for Ca(OH)₂ activation, the setting time initially decreased but then increased as the dosage was raised from 4% to 8%, indicating a non-linear, optimal dosage effect. This confirms that the increased alkalinity from NaOH effectively depolymerizes the glassy aluminosilicate phases in fly ash, enhancing its reactivity. A moderate increase in Ca(OH)₂ dosage provides a favorable alkaline environment (high pH) while supplying necessary Ca² ⁺ ions, synergistically enhancing fly ash dissolution and subsequent gel formation. However, an excessive Ca(OH)₂ dosage (e.g., 8%) appears to oversaturate the system with Ca²⁺ and OH⁻ ions, which can lead to the premature precipitation of less-reactive phases or passivation of the fly ash particle surfaces, thereby retarding the overall reaction and prolonging the setting time. In summary, the setting behavior of these alkali-activated systems is highly tunable through the strategic selection and dosage of the alkaline activator, allowing for customization to meet specific application requirements.

3.2 Mortar strength

Compressive and flexural strength are fundamental mechanical properties of cementitious materials, serving as key indicators for structural integrity and long-term durability. The development of compressive and flexural strength in the slag-based system, as influenced by the type and dosage of NaOH and Ca(OH)₂, is shown in Figs 5 and 6, respectively.

Fig 5. Compressive strength of slag.

Fig 5

Fig 6. Flexural strength of slag.

Fig 6

A clear superiority of NaOH over Ca(OH)₂ as an activator for slag is evident from these figures, with NaOH yielding significantly higher compressive and flexural strengths across all curing ages and dosage levels. This performance disparity can be ascribed to more rapid hydration kinetics and the formation of a greater volume of effective binding hydration products (e.g., C-(A)-S-H gel) in the NaOH-activated systems, confirming the superior reactivity of slag under highly alkaline conditions provided by NaOH. Furthermore, a positive correlation was observed between the NaOH dosage (from 4% to 8%) and the mechanical strength development in the slag-based system. This enhancement is directly attributable to the elevated alkalinity, which promotes the depolymerization of the vitreous slag structure by breaking Si-O-Si and Si-O-Al bonds. This process liberates a higher concentration of silicate ([SiO₄]⁴⁻) and aluminate ([AlO₄]⁵⁻) monomers. These species subsequently react with Ca²⁺ (from the slag) and Na⁺ (from the activator) in the pore solution, precipitating a cohesive matrix primarily composed of C-(A)-S-H gel, with potential co-formation of N-A-S-H type gels, which collectively contribute to strength development. The intergrowth and space-filling nature of these gels significantly refine the pore structure, reducing porosity and enhancing the overall density of the matrix. This is the fundamental mechanism behind the strength improvement, an interpretation consistent with the mechanistic insights provided by Zhong et al.[26] and Li et al. [27]. In contrast, the effect of Ca(OH)₂ on strength development was less straightforward. While compressive strength showed gradual improvement with increasing Ca(OH)₂ dosage from 4% to 8%, the flexural strength displayed a more complex trend: it increased gradually at 3 and 7 days, but showed an initial rise followed by a decline at 28 days for the higher dosages.

The compressive and flexural strength development of the fly ash-based system, activated by NaOH and Ca(OH)₂, is shown in Figs 7 and 8, respectively. The results clearly indicate that Ca(OH)₂ activation yields superior mortar strength compared to NaOH activation for the fly ash system, demonstrating that Ca(OH)₂ is a more effective activator for unlocking the pozzolanic potential of fly ash. This enhancement is primarily attributed to the crucial role of calcium. The addition of Ca(OH)₂ increases the Ca/Si ratio in the system, which is essential for the formation of strength-giving calcium (alumino)silicate hydrate (C-(A)-S-H) gels, thereby accelerating the reaction kinetics and strength development. Furthermore, the introduced Ca² ⁺ ions can participate in the reaction pathways, potentially leading to the formation of more stable and denser C-(A)-S-H gel, either by modifying the N-A-S-H gel structure or by forming independently. The coexistence and intergrowth of these gel phases create a more cohesive and denser microstructure, which substantially enhances the mechanical strength. Increasing the NaOH dosage from 4% to 8% led to a progressive, though modest, improvement in strength, confirming that higher alkalinity facilitates the dissolution of fly ash particles. Conversely, for Ca(OH)₂ activation, an optimal dosage is observed. The strength increases as the dosage rises from 4% to 6%, but a further increase to 8% results in a noticeable decrease in both compressive and flexural strength. This strength reduction at the 8% Ca(OH)₂ dosage is attributed to the dual effect of excessive alkalinity and an overly high Ca/Si ratio. This unfavorable condition may lead to the rapid precipitation of less effective or porous reaction products, potentially passivating the remaining fly ash particles and hindering further depolymerization of the glassy phase and the formation of a cohesive gel matrix. The effectiveness of Ca(OH)₂, despite its limited solubility, stems from its ability to establish a sufficiently high pH environment upon dissolution. The released OH⁻ ions initiate the depolymerization of the fly ash glassy phase by breaking Si-O-Si and Si-O-Al bonds, liberating reactive silicate and aluminate species. Concurrently, the introduced Ca² ⁺ ions readily combine with these species, promoting the nucleation and growth of C-(A)-S-H gel. The precipitation of this gel lowers the ion concentration in the solution, thereby maintaining a chemical driving force for the ongoing dissolution of fly ash via Le Chatelier’s principle, which underpins the continuous strength development.

Fig 7. Compressive strength of fly ash.

Fig 7

Fig 8. Flexural strength of fly ash.

Fig 8

3.3 SEM analysis

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was used to establish the relationship between the macroscopic mechanical properties and the underlying microstructure of the alkali-activated slag and fly ash systems, providing visual evidence of hydration product morphology and matrix development.

Ca(OH)₂-activated Slag: In the system activated with 6% Ca(OH)₂ (6SC), the early hydration stage (3 days, Fig 9a) is characterized by the formation of abundant but structurally loose and porous C-(A)-S-H gel with a long-chain morphology, only partially covering the unhydrated slag particles. This underdeveloped microstructure correlates with the lower early-age strength of this mixture. By 28 days (Fig 9c), these products underwent dehydration and polycondensation, forming a relatively continuous microstructure, although significant large pores remained. In contrast, the system with 8% Ca(OH)₂ (8SC) produced substantial flocculent C-(A)-S-H gel and acicular ettringite (AFt) crystals at 3 days (Fig 9d), rather than a continuous network. The quantity of AFt increased at 7 days (Fig 9e), which is attributed to the elevated Ca² ⁺ concentration and enhanced alkalinity accelerating dissolution and promoting AFt formation. The expansive nature of AFt mitigated shrinkage deformation, explaining the higher strength of the 8SC group compared to the 6SC group. By 28 days (Fig 9f), a substantial increase in hydration products effectively filled the interstitial spaces, resulting in a more uniform, dense, and continuous binding matrix.

Fig 9. SEM images of slag activated by 6% and 8% Ca(OH)₂ or NaOH.

Fig 9

NaOH-activated Slag: The system with 6% NaOH (6SN) showed a significant decrease in unhydrated slag particles at 3 days (Fig 9g), forming loosely structured flocculent C-(A)-S-H gel intergrown with platy gismondine at 7 days (Fig 9h). The interpenetrating C-(A)-S-H gel and gismondine contributed to strength development, although numerous large pores persisted. By 28 days (Fig 9i), the volume of hydration products increased, rod-like structures disappeared, and a compact microstructure developed. Compared to 6SN, the 8% NaOH system (8SN) exhibited a higher degree of hydration product polymerization at 3 days (Fig 9j) and formed a relatively dense microstructure by 7 days (Fig 9k). Further dehydration and polycondensation at 28 days (Fig 9l) yielded an even denser structure, with the 8SN sample exhibiting the most compact microstructure among all samples.

Collectively, the SEM analysis confirms the superior effectiveness of NaOH over Ca(OH)₂ in activating slag, resulting in a denser microstructure. The 8% NaOH dosage (8SN) facilitated the most complete reaction and the formation of the most compact matrix, which aligns perfectly with its superior mechanical performance and is consistent with the findings of Zuo et al.[24]

The microstructural development of the fly ash-based system, corresponding to the strength results, is shown in Fig 10, illustrating the distinct effects of Ca(OH)₂ and NaOH activation over time.

Fig 10. SEM images of fly ash activated by 6% and 8% NaOH or Ca(OH)₂.

Fig 10

Ca(OH)₂-activated Fly Ash: At early ages (3 and 7 days), the microstructure was dominated by a substantial quantity of unreacted and agglomerated fly ash particles (Fig 10a, 10b, 10d, 10e). Only limited formation of hydration products was observed at this stage, appearing as porous, flocculent, or reticulated gels, tentatively identified as C-(A)-S-H and N-A-S-H. These initial gels primarily adhered to particle surfaces or partially filled interparticle spaces, indicating an ongoing but incomplete reaction during the first week. By 28 days (Fig 10c, 10f), a significant progression is evident. A considerably larger volume of hydration products formed, effectively enveloping the residual fly ash particles and binding them together into a more continuous and polymerized matrix. However, the persistent presence of discernible, partially reacted particles underscores the slower reaction kinetics of fly ash compared to slag. Notably, the sample with the optimal 6% Ca(OH)₂ dosage (6FC, Fig 10c) developed the densest and most homogeneous microstructure among the Ca(OH)₂-activated groups, with fewer visible pores and a more extensive gel network, providing a microstructural explanation for its peak mechanical performance.

NaOH-activated Fly Ash: In stark contrast, the microstructures of the NaOH-activated systems (Fig 10g-10l) are characterized by the persistent and abundant presence of unhydrated fly ash particles throughout the entire 28-day curing period. This visual evidence strongly indicates the low activation efficiency of NaOH alone for this Class F fly ash, as it failed to significantly depolymerize the glassy phases. Only isolated and limited formations of flocculent hydration products are observed, which failed to develop into a pervasive, continuous binding matrix. This lack of effective microstructural cohesion directly explains the poor strength development in these mixtures.

3.4 XRD analysis

The degree of hydration reaction is a critical indicator of the hardening process in cementitious materials. To assess the evolution of hydration products and precursor consumption under the influence of different alkaline activators and dosages, X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed on specimens cured for 28 days. A semi-quantitative assessment based on the relative intensities of characteristic diffraction peaks was conducted to evaluate the influence of alkaline activation on the reaction degree, as shown in Figs 11 and 12.

Fig 11. XRD patterns of the slag-based system.

Fig 11

Fig 12. XRD patterns of the fly ash-based system.

Fig 12

As expected, the primary hydration products—amorphous C-(A)-S-H and N-A-S-H gels—do not yield distinct diffraction peaks due to their disordered atomic structure and thus manifest as a broad hump in the 2θ range of approximately 10°–90°. In the slag-based system (Fig 11), the identified crystalline phases primarily consist of unreacted quartz (SiO₂) from the raw slag and gismondine (CaAl₂Si₂O₈·4H₂O, a zeolite-like phase), which is a crystalline hydration product. In the fly ash-based system (Fig 12), the dominant crystalline phases are unreacted quartz (SiO₂) and mullite (3Al₂O₃·2SiO₂) from the fly ash precursor. Calcite (CaCO₃) was also detected, indicating partial carbonation, likely of portlandite or calcium-containing gels. The persistence of quartz and mullite peaks indicates unreacted particles, while a reduction in their intensity signifies consumption during reaction to form amorphous gels. Similarly, in slag systems, decreased quartz intensity implies a higher degree of reaction. The detection of gismondine confirms crystalline hydration product formation under alkaline conditions. The significant differences in relative peak intensities among mixtures demonstrate that the type and dosage of the alkaline activator profoundly influence reaction kinetics and the ultimate degree of precursor conversion.

In the slag-based system (Fig 11), sample 8SN exhibited a lower quartz peak intensity and a higher gismondine peak intensity compared to 6SN. This indicates that the higher 8% NaOH dosage promoted more extensive dissolution of the slag, resulting in a greater volume of both amorphous gels (contributing to the broad hump) and crystalline gismondine. A similar, though less pronounced, trend was observed for Ca(OH)₂ activation, where 8SC showed reduced quartz intensity relative to 6SC, confirming that a higher Ca(OH)₂ dosage also facilitates slag reaction. The lowest quartz intensity and the most intense gismondine peaks were consistently observed in the 8SN group. This confirms that an 8% NaOH dosage provides the most effective activation conditions for dissolving the glassy phase of slag, thereby maximizing the formation of both the amorphous binding gels and the associated crystalline phases. Portlandite (Ca(OH)₂) peaks are detectable in both 8SC and 6SC patterns, indicating either an excess of the activator beyond what could be consumed in the reaction or its formation from free CaO in the slag. Additionally, a minor ettringite (AFt) peak was identified at approximately 11.44° 2θ, which originates from the reaction between dissolved Ca² ⁺ , aluminate species, and sulfates inherently present in the slag. In the fly ash-based system (Fig 12), a pivotal finding is the significantly lower quartz and mullite peak intensities in the Ca(OH)₂-activated specimens (6FC, 8FC) compared to their NaOH-activated counterparts (6FN, 8FN). This provides direct mineralogical evidence of Ca(OH)₂‘s superior efficacy in dissolving the aluminosilicate phases of fly ash, thereby facilitating the formation of amorphous C-(A)-S-H and N-A-S-H gels. This finding is consistent with the mechanism proposed by Zhao et al.[25] for Ca(OH)₂-activated systems. Among the NaOH-activated specimens, 8FN exhibited reduced quartz and mullite intensities relative to 6FN, confirming that increased alkalinity does enhance the dissolution of fly ash and the formation of N-A-S-H gel, albeit to a much lesser extent than Ca(OH)₂ activation. Conversely, and in alignment with the strength results, the 8FC specimen exhibited higher quartz and mullite peak intensities than the optimal 6FC specimen. This indicates that the excessive 8% Ca(OH)₂ dosage inhibits the dissolution of fly ash particles. Consequently, the formation of strength-contributing amorphous gels is impaired, providing a clear phase-compositional explanation for the observed strength deterioration at this high dosage. The weakest intensities for the crystalline fly ash phases (quartz, mullite) occurred in the 6FC specimen, identifying it as the formulation with the highest degree of fly ash consumption and thus confirming 6% as the optimal Ca(OH)₂ dosage for activating this specific fly ash. The presence of calcite (CaCO₃) peaks confirms some carbonation occurred in both 8FC and 6FC. The notably stronger calcite peak in 8FC is logically attributed to the carbonation of a larger amount of unreacted portlandite, which is consistent with its higher initial dosage and its inferred inhibitory effect on the hydration reaction, as suggested by the higher residual quartz/mullite content.

3.5 FTIR analysis

Since the mechanical strength of these materials is primarily derived from the amorphous gel phases, which lack distinct diffraction patterns in XRD, Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy was employed to probe the molecular structure of the hydration products. This technique probes the vibrational modes of chemical bonds. Analysis of the resulting spectra allows for a semi-quantitative assessment of gel formation and provides insights into the aluminosilicate network’s degree of polymerization (DOP), thereby helping to elucidate the strength differences between the systems.

The FTIR spectra of specimens cured for 28 days are shown in Figs 13 and 14. The key absorption bands for analysis are in the region of 1300–850 cm ⁻ ¹, corresponding to the asymmetric stretching vibrations of Si–O–T bonds (where T is Si or Al). The position and shape of this main band are sensitive to the DOP and the Si/Al ratio. Additionally, the peak near 743 cm ⁻ ¹ is attributed to symmetric stretching vibrations of Si–O–Si bonds, further confirming the presence of an amorphous aluminosilicate gel network. All spectra exhibit absorption bands in these characteristic regions, indicating that the fundamental building blocks of the reaction products (SiO₄ and AlO₄ tetrahedra) are consistent across all mixtures, primarily forming amorphous aluminosilicate gels. This observation aligns with the findings of Tao et al.[28].

Fig 13. FTIR spectra of the slag-based system.

Fig 13

Fig 14. FTIR spectra of the fly ash-based system.

Fig 14

Slag-based System (Fig 13): The main Si–O–T absorption band is significantly more intense for the NaOH-activated slag groups (8SN, 6SN) than for the Ca(OH)₂-activated groups (8SC, 6SC), suggesting a greater quantity of gel phases and providing molecular-level evidence for NaOH’s superior efficacy. Within the NaOH-activated series, the 8SN specimen exhibits a more intense Si–O–T band than 6SN, indicating a higher volume of reaction products. A key observation is the downward shift of the main Si–O–T band (e.g., from ~946 cm ⁻ ¹ in 6SN to ~941 cm ⁻ ¹ in 8SN), typically indicating a higher degree of Al substitution for Si and/or a slight decrease in DOP. The substantial increase in total gel volume in 8SN appears to outweigh potential nanostructural changes, resulting in superior mechanical performance dominated by gel quantity. For Ca(OH)₂-activated slag, the 6SC specimen shows a more intense Si–O–T band than 8SC, located at a higher wavenumber. A shift to a higher wavenumber can be associated with a higher proportion of Q³ units relative to Q² units, suggesting a gel with a higher DOP and potentially improved structural stability, aligning with the findings of Wan et al.[29].

Fly Ash-based System (Fig 14): The Si–O–T band intensity is stronger in 8FN than in 6FN, whereas the opposite is true for Ca(OH)₂-activated systems (6FC > 8FC). This demonstrates that increased NaOH dosage promotes fly ash dissolution and N-A-S-H gel formation, while the higher 8% Ca(OH)₂ dosage inhibits depolymerization, resulting in less gel formation, consistent with XRD and strength data. Furthermore, Ca(OH)₂-activated systems (6FC, 8FC) generally display more intense Si–O–T bands at higher wavenumbers compared to NaOH-activated systems (6FN, 8FN). This indicates that not only is the quantity of gels greater with Ca(OH)₂ activation, but the gels also possess a more polymerized structure. This molecular-level evidence conclusively confirms the pronounced sensitivity and superior reactivity of this fly ash to Ca(OH)₂ activation, providing a fundamental explanation for the superior strength development and shorter setting times.

3.6 Pore phase distribution and pore structure

The pore structure, including its volume, size distribution, and spatial arrangement, is a critical microstructural characteristic that governs key macroscopic properties such as strength, durability, and frost resistance. In this study, the pore characteristics of the 28-day cured mortar specimens were quantitatively analyzed using Backscattered Electron Image Analysis (BSE-IA).

NaOH-activated Slag: Visual comparison of the BSE images (Fig 15a, 15b) indicates a notably higher pore density and more pronounced pore clustering in the 6SN specimen compared to 8SN. The quantitative data in Table 3 corroborate this: the 8SN mixture exhibits substantially lower total porosity, a smaller maximum pore diameter, a reduced total number of pores, and a finer pore size distribution. This indicates that the 8 wt.% NaOH dosage induces a more complete reaction, generating a greater volume of hydration products that effectively fill and segment the capillary pore space, thereby refining the pore structure, a mechanism consistent with the findings of Li et al. [30].

Fig 15. Pore phase distribution maps(BSE-IA) of the slag and fly ash-based systems.

Fig 15

Table 3. Characteristic pore structure parameters.

sample Porosity/% Number of pores per unit/ piece Maximum pore diameter/μm Total pore area/mm2
6SN 35.83 4456 2.325 0.0105
8SN 25.12 3598 0.206 0.0572
6SC 46.06 4140 3.028 0.0194
8SC 31.50 2712 0.726 0.0158
6FC 45.59 3618 2.854 0.0217
8FC 48.68 5685 3.624 0.0192

Ca(OH)₂-activated Slag: Similarly, the 8SC specimen (Fig 15d) exhibits a lower number of pores and a more uniform spatial distribution compared to 6SC (Fig 15c). Quantitatively, the total porosity of 8SC is 14.56% lower than that of 6SC, accompanied by a reduction in total pore count and a significant decrease in maximum pore diameter. This demonstrates that the higher 8 wt.% Ca(OH)₂ dosage is more effective in modifying the reaction products and resulting microstructure, leading to a denser matrix. A comparative analysis confirms that the 8SN specimen possesses the most favorable pore structure among the slag-based mixtures, characterized by the lowest total porosity, the virtual absence of large detrimental pores, and the most homogeneous pore distribution.

Fly Ash Systems: For the fly ash systems, analysis of the Ca(OH)₂-activated specimens (Fig 15e, 15f) indicates that the optimal 6FC mixture possesses a lower pore density and less pronounced pore clustering compared to the 8FC mixture. The data in Table 3 quantitatively support this, showing that 6FC has lower porosity, fewer pores, a smaller maximum pore diameter, and a finer pore system overall. This confirms that the 6 wt.% Ca(OH)₂ dosage promotes a more complete reaction of fly ash, leading to an optimized internal microstructure with a refined pore system. Such a pore structure is known to impede water ingress and ice formation, thereby enhancing durability factors like frost resistance, which aligns with the principles discussed by Bernal et al. [11].

3.7 Hydration Characteristics Analysis

To gain deeper insight into the hydration reaction kinetics, the heat evolution of the optimally performing mixtures—slag activated with 8 wt.% NaOH (8SN) and fly ash activated with 6 wt.% Ca(OH)₂ (6FC)—was monitored using an isothermal calorimeter over 72 hours. Figs 16 and 17 show the corresponding hydration heat release rate and cumulative heat release curves, respectively.

Fig 16. Hydration heat release rate.

Fig 16

Fig 17. Cumulative hydration heat.

Fig 17

Slag System (8SN): As shown in Fig 16, the slag system exhibits a sharp, intense exothermic peak immediately after mixing (within ~0.2 h). This peak is attributed to initial wetting, ion dissolution, and rapid formation of early reaction products, correlating with its very short setting time and early-age strength development. A second, broader exothermic peak follows, associated with the main reaction period involving accelerated nucleation and growth of the C-(A)-S-H gel phase. The cumulative heat release curve for slag (Fig 17) shows a high total heat output that increases rapidly during the first 24 h and continues to rise steadily thereafter, signifying a high overall reaction extent and substantial formation of binding gels responsible for microstructural densification. The calorimetry data thus establish a characteristic three-stage reaction regime for the optimally activated slag: (i) an immediate, intense reaction governing initial set and early strength; (ii) a main reaction period driving primary strength gain; and (iii) a sustained later reaction contributing to continued microstructural refinement.

Fly Ash System (6FC): In stark contrast, the fly ash system exhibits a much less intense initial exothermic peak, which occurs later and is broader, centered around 0.6 h (Fig 16). This signifies a slower and less vigorous initial dissolution and reaction process. The subsequent heat release rate remains at a low but sustained level over several days, without a distinct, sharp second peak, suggesting a slow, continuous reaction mechanism characteristic of the gradual dissolution of fly ash and precipitation of gels. Consequently, the cumulative heat release for fly ash (Fig 17) is significantly lower and increases more gradually than that of slag. This low heat evolution profile is a hallmark of alkali-activated fly ash systems, reflecting their longer setting times and slower strength development kinetics. The sustained reaction, however, facilitates the development of a relatively uniform and dense microstructure at later ages.

3.8 Technical limitations

Despite the insightful findings of this work, several limitations should be acknowledged, which also delineate productive avenues for subsequent research.

Firstly, the setting behavior was assessed using the standard Vicat needle method. Its reliance on manual operation introduces a potential for subjective error. More importantly, it offers only discrete measurements and cannot capture the continuous, dynamic evolution of the early-age hydration and structural build-up processes. To overcome this limitation, future investigations should employ automated monitoring techniques, such as the sensor-based data acquisition approaches referenced in [31,32]. This would yield a more objective, high-resolution dataset of the setting kinetics, enabling a deeper understanding of the early-stage reaction mechanisms.

Secondly, the present study focused on the fundamental properties of setting time and mechanical strength under standard curing conditions. For the successful transition of these alkali-activated systems from laboratory research to real-world engineering applications, two critical aspects demand further exploration: (1) the long-term durability under aggressive environments, and (2) the development of reliable models for predicting long-term performance. Future work will, therefore, utilize methodologies akin to those in [33] to establish a robust predictive model for strength development over time. Concurrently, following the approaches detailed in [3436], a comprehensive evaluation of durability—focusing on resistance to sulfate attack, chloride penetration, and freeze-thaw cycles—will be undertaken. Addressing these aspects is imperative to build confidence and provide the essential technical foundation for the broad adoption of these sustainable binders.

Conclusion

This study presented a systematic investigation into the influence of alkaline activator type (NaOH and Ca(OH)₂) and dosage (4%, 6%, and 8%) on the setting behavior, mechanical strength development, hydration product evolution, and microstructure of alkali-activated slag and fly ash systems. The key conclusions are summarized as follows:

  • (1) The setting kinetics were strongly dependent on both the precursor and activator type. For slag systems activated by either NaOH or Ca(OH)₂, and for fly ash systems activated by NaOH, increasing the activator dosage from 4% to 8% consistently accelerated the setting and hardening process. In contrast, for the Ca(OH)₂-activated fly ash system, a non-monotonic trend was observed, where the setting time reached a minimum at 6% dosage before increasing at 8%, indicating an optimal dosage beyond which retardation occurs.

  • (2) The mechanical performance was directly linked to the efficacy of the activator-precursor combination. The slag system exhibited superior sensitivity to NaOH activation, achieving its highest 28-day compressive strength (35.94 MPa) and the densest microstructure at an 8% dosage. Conversely, the fly ash system was most effectively activated by Ca(OH)₂, reaching its peak compressive strength (6.65 MPa) at an optimal dosage of 6%.

  • (3) Microstructural and calorimetric analyses revealed distinct reaction mechanisms. The optimally activated slag system (8% NaOH) exhibited a vigorous, multi-stage hydration process, leading to the rapid formation of a dense matrix. The optimally activated fly ash system (6% Ca(OH)₂), while reacting more gradually, facilitated the steady formation of a homogeneous and cohesive microstructure, supporting sustained strength development.

  • (4) Quantitative pore structure analysis confirmed that the formulations delivering the highest mechanical strength—namely, the slag system with 8% NaOH and the fly ash system with 6% Ca(OH)₂—were also characterized by the most refined microstructures, exhibiting the lowest total porosity, the smallest maximum pore diameters, and a uniform pore distribution.

Data Availability

All data files are available from the figshare database (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29365352).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Yoo D-Y, Banthia N, You I, Lee S-J. Recent advances in cementless ultra-high-performance concrete using alkali-activated materials and industrial byproducts: a review. Cement Concrete Comp. 2024;148:105470. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2024.105470 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jiang MS, Li F, Zhou LA, Ning JR, Zhang Z. Effect of compound activation of sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide and water glass on properties of geopolymer cementitious materials. Bulletin Chinese Ceramic Soc. 2024;43(3):929–37. doi: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2024.03.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rashad AM. A comprehensive overview about the influence of different additives on the properties of alkali-activated slag – a guide for Civil Engineer. Constr Build Mat. 2013;47:29–55. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.04.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mobili A, Telesca A, Marroccoli M, Tittarelli F. Calcium sulfoaluminate and alkali-activated fly ash cements as alternative to Portland cement: study on chemical, physical-mechanical, and durability properties of mortars with the same strength class. Constr Build Mat. 2020;246:118436. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118436 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P, Lukey GC. Reaction mechanisms in the geopolymeric conversion of inorganic waste to useful products. J Hazard Mater. 2007;139(3):506–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.02.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liu Y, Shi C, Zhang Z, Li N, Shi D. Mechanical and fracture properties of ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete: effects of steel fiber and silica fume. Cement Concrete Comp. 2020;112:103665. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103665 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jiao Z, Zhang S, Wang Y, Dong Z, Lu Z. Influence of fly ash content on pore structure regulation in alkali-activated slag under alkaline conditions. Constr Build Mat. 2025;485:141863. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.141863 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhou Y, Ji Y, Xue Q, Dai G, Xu S. Establishment of a prediction model for the compressive strength of alkali-activated fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. Construction and Building Materials. 2025;480:141556. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.141556 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jafari Nadoushan M, Ramezanianpour AA. The effect of type and concentration of activators on flowability and compressive strength of natural pozzolan and slag-based geopolymers. Constr Build Mat. 2016;111:337–47. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bernal SA, Provis JL. Durability of alkali‐activated materials: progress and perspectives. J Am Ceram Soc. 2014;97(4):997–1008. doi: 10.1111/jace.12831 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Singh N, Singh T, Kumar M, Singh A, Kumar P. Investigating the fresh state performance of concrete containing iron slag and recycled concrete aggregates. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2022;65:1467–77. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.462 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Li W, Li F, Chen D, Li S. Effect of granulated blast furnace slag on uniaxial compression fatigue properties of engineered geopolymer composites. Structures. 2024;69:107513. doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shao S, Gong A, Wang R. Analysis of the compressive strength of alkali-activated fly ash concrete with different material mix proportions at various ages. Hubei Agricul Sci. 2024;63(06):204–6. doi: 10.14088/j.cnki.issn0439-8114.2024.06.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sun J, Zhang Z, Zhuang S, He W. Hydration properties and microstructure characteristics of alkali–activated steel slag. Constr Build Mat. 2020;241:118141. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118141 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bernal SA, Provis JL, Walkley B, San Nicolas R, Gehman JD, Brice DG, et al. Gel nanostructure in alkali-activated binders based on slag and fly ash, and effects of accelerated carbonation. Cement Concrete Res. 2013;53:127–44. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.06.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Živica V. Effects of type and dosage of alkaline activator and temperature on the properties of alkali-activated slag mixtures. Constr Build Mat. 2007;21(7):1463–9. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sun KQ, Liu L, Zheng HC. Analysis of influencing factors on mechanical properties of alkali-activated slag-fly ash cementitious materials. Bulletin Chinese Ceram Soc. 2024;43(9):3313–9. doi: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2024.09.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bayat A, Hassani A, Yousefi AA. Effects of red mud on the properties of fresh and hardened alkali-activated slag paste and mortar. Constr Build Mat. 2018;167:775–90. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu YL, Yuan SY, Deng KY, Cheng XB, Zheng YX, Liu XF. Experimental study on strength characteristics and failure modes of NaOH-activated fly ash geopolymer J. Railway Standard Design. 2025;:1–10. doi: 10.13238/j.issn.1004-2954.202310140002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Qiao LT, Song ZF. Hydration process and mechanical properties of alkali-activated fly ash-based cementitious materials. Metal Mine. 2023;11:179–85. doi: 10.19614/j.cnki.jsks.202311022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ge X, Hu X, Shi C. The long-term development in the micro- and macro-properties of geopolymers made from different fly ashes. Cement Concrete Comp. 2024;152:105637. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2024.105637 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Han XM, Han PJ, Ma FL. Influence behavior of alkali-activated slag on cement-concrete interface. J Metal Mine. 2024;7:276–80. doi: 10.19614/j.cnki.jsks.202407038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yu Q, Wan XM, Zhao TJ, Wang T, Han X, Sun ZT. Study on chloride ion penetration resistance and electrical test methods of alkali-activated slag concrete. Mat Rep. 2022;36(5):100–5. doi: 10.11896/cldb.20100143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zuo Y, Ye G. Pore structure characterization of sodium hydroxide activated slag using mercury intrusion porosimetry, nitrogen adsorption, and image analysis. Materials (Basel). 2018;11(6):1035. doi: 10.3390/ma11061035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhao X, Liu C, Zuo L, Wang L, Zhu Q, Wang M. Investigation into the effect of calcium on the existence form of geopolymerized gel product of fly ash based geopolymers. Cement Concrete Comp. 2019;103:279–92. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.11.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zhong QY, Su M, Peng H. Experimental study on macroscopic properties and Lasso regression model of metakaolin-slag geopolymer J. Acta Materiae Compositae Sinica. 2022;39(11):5474–85. doi: 10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20211230.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Li J, Chen DB, Yu QJ, Yin SH. Reaction process of slag in sodium hydroxide solutions with different concentrations. J Chinese Ceramic Soc. 2024;52(5):1508–19. doi: 10.14062/j.issn.0454-5648.20230697 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tao Y, Sun K, Yang J, Shen B, Zhang Y, Hui D. Influence of calcium oxide and sodium silicate on the setting, hardening and shrinkage properties of alkali-activated slag/fly ash mortars. Constr Build Mat. 2024;453:139104. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.139104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wan Q, Rao F, Song S, Leon‐Patino CA, Ma Y, Yin W. Consolidation of mine tailings through geopolymerization at ambient temperature. J Am Ceram Soc. 2018;102(5):2451–61. doi: 10.1111/jace.16183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Li W, Hong J, Zhu X, Yang D, Bai Y, Liu J, et al. Retardation mechanism of anionic asphalt emulsion on the hydration of Portland cement. Constru Build Mat. 2018;163:714–23. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.150 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Niu Q, Shi W, Zhang Q, Zhang D. Underwater passive sonar fusion detection based on sensor bias estimation and classification. Digital Signal Process. 2026;168:105596. doi: 10.1016/j.dsp.2025.105596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gao M, Zhang B, Du X, Yang X, Zhai C, Chen C, et al. InSe-based sensors and related sensing systems for NO2 gas/temperature monitoring. ACS Sens. 2025;10(9):7124–33. doi: 10.1021/acssensors.5c02421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Abbaszadeh Shahri A, Larsson S, Johansson F. Updated relations for the uniaxial compressive strength of marlstones based on P-wave velocity and point load index test. Innov Infrastruct Solut. 2016;1(1). doi: 10.1007/s41062-016-0016-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Liu F, Liu J, He Z, Zheng X, Yang Y, Li B. Study on the frost resistance and pore structure evolution of fly ash-coal gangue-based geopolymer concrete. Cold Reg Sci Tech. 2026;241:104709. doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2025.104709 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zhao G, Chen P, Ding Y, Nie Z, Bao L, Ding S. Durability performance evaluation of iron tailings sand based concrete under combined corrosion of sulfate and magnesium salt. J Build Eng. 2025;114:114373. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2025.114373 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kan L, Chen B, Gan Y. Engineered geopolymer composites for concrete repair: durability behavior and mechanistic investigation under sulfate wet-dry cycles. J Build Eng. 2025;114:114323. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2025.114323 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Parthiban Kathirvel

7 May 2025

Dear Dr. Gong,

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 Jun 21 2025 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.

  • 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,

Parthiban Kathirvel

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.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

4. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author 镯 金.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: The submission overall follows the lab instruction and is straightforward. It mimics the Chinese guidelines and thus based on other international known guidelines like ASTM its generalizing might become difficult. Overall, it fails to highlight gaps or biases in the literature, and provides uncharacterized research gaps leading to unjustified conclusions without meaningful insights or future directions.

Most of the references are in Chinese which are not applicable for international readers

Structurally disorganized. It doesn’t follow the IMRAD. It has figs with different parts while almost none of them either in the context or in the captions have been mentioned or discussed. For example, Fig 7, 15 …

Sensitivity analysis as described in this work is DECLINED to be accepted

Discussion on XRD

Lack of convincing and documented Discussion: technical limitations/uncertainty analysis/feasibility study and possibility for large scale use/benefits to industry/solid comparison with other works to show the improvement/the impact of bias of the used data on the results/…

Substandard English/unreflective and general keywords/…

When we discuss setting time, procedure requires continuous updating (dynamic databases) while this work doesn’t provide a solution for uniformly normalizing dynamic databases via different factors. Search for new approaches via keywords like normalizing large scale sensor-based data with an automated method …

In terms of the strength (Fig 5, 6…) you may benefit from other works like https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41062-016-0016-9...

Conclusion should be justified

Reference list should follow the journal guidelines and supplemented by DOI link

Reviewer #2: Title

The title should be rephrased, fly ash and slag should appear in the title

Abstract

The abstract lacks quantity, include results obtained for compressive strength and flexural strength. Ensure that you contrast between results obtained for slag and fly ash.

Rewrite the abstract to improve readability

Correct misspelt words

Introduction

The justification for the study is not well established. Improve on this

Rephrase sentence: is China's major contributor to emissions

Use fullstop (.) before The

Start as a new paragraph

Methods

Improve this paragraph to aid coherency. Also provide pictures of the materials used. It is important to provide the particle size distribution of the slag and the fly ash.

Provide detailed information about this procedures. Just as was done for compressive strength. Describe all the testing methods to a great detail in different subsections. XRD, FTIR, TAM, BSE

Results

What do you mean by change rule diagram

The sentence is too long. Consider breaking the sentences to improve readability.

Improve readability. Discuss relative to existing literature

The method for sensitivity analysis was not captured in the methods

Highlight the important minerals and show the observable changes using inscribed rectangles.

FTIR analysis not FIRT Analysis

Introduce a shape here to call the reader to the difference in intensity.

Improve the discussion by making reference to recent literature. (Hydration characterization)

Describe the method in detail under the method section. (Pore physical phase distribution and pore structure characteristics)

Consider rephrasing the sentence. Also improve this section with information from literature. What is the ideal pore area for geopolymer composites based on previous attempts by other researchers?

Conclusion

Provide a brief information about the purpose of the study before itemising the conclusions. Also, include the limitations of this study after the conclusion. Furthermore, I will suggest you give the entire manuscript to a native English speaker to improve the grammar, punctuation and sentences. There are a lot of grammatical inconsistency

Reviewer #3: 1. In the introduction, the sentences are too long; kindly consider shortening them by rewriting for better understanding.

2. Authors used terms like “alkali excitation, alkali-inspired, alkaline-stimulant” in some places, and in some other places it is alkali-activation; recommended to use the same term for the developing process.

3. “The material is a green geopolymer cementitious material that can replace cement” This sentence is repeated in the introduction.

4. In the introduction, the authors mentioned the main components of slag as silica and alumina, but the XRF results show that the main components are calcium oxide and silica oxide. Kindly check.

5. The introduction has to be rewritten by considering delivering ideas properly with short and clear sentences.

6. The novelty of the work is not clear. A lot of research work is available on the effect of activator dosage on binary blended alkali-activated concrete. Authors have to clearly state the novelty of the work.

7. Kindly check the unit of density mentioned in the paper.

8. The authors didn’t mention how the activator solution is prepared, the molarity, etc. and the percentage of alkali content is mentioned, but it is not clear about the percentage of what.

9. “Alkaline exciter: Hui-lime brand lime powder produced by Yixian Huangbaozhu Daily Chemical Products Co., Ltd, with CaO content of 93.45%”, which activator contains CaO content of 93.45%?

10. It is recommended to avoid long sentences in the discussion part for better understandability.

11. The authors mentioned that the quick setting of slag-based mortar is due to the “lower degree of polymerisation of the vitreous structure in the slag” Is this verified?

12. What about the pH of both activator solutions?

13. Ca is not soluble in water, so how does CaOH2 improve the dissolution of particles from fly ash? Authors must clearly explain the reaction mechanism.

14. The results and discussion part has to be strengthened with justification for the results, and compared with other literature available.

15. Kindly check the SEM images shown in Fig. 8, some mixes seem to be missing.

16. The title for the FT-IR study is provided as FIRT, kindly correct it.

17. The conclusion part should be crisp, and the outcome of the work should be delivered properly.

18. Include the images of materials used, mixing, casting, and testing of the cured specimen.

19. It is highly recommended to go through the paper and make the necessary corrections required to improve the quality of the research 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:  Abiola Adebanjo

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review PLOS 1.pdf

pone.0338119.s001.pdf (17MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0338119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0338119.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


7 Jul 2025

Dear Editor Kathirvel,

Thank you and the reviewers for your careful evaluation and valuable suggestions on our manuscript titled "[Your Paper Title]" (Manuscript ID: [Your Manuscript Number]).

We have thoroughly revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and have submitted the following materials via the submission system:

Response to Reviewers letter (labeled "Reviewers 1, Reviewers 2, Reviewers 3"): Addressed all points raised by the editor and reviewers point-by-point;

Revised manuscript with tracked changes (labeled "Revised Manuscript"): Clearly highlights all modifications;

Final clean version (labeled "Revised Manuscript -copy"): The complete revised manuscript without revision marks.

Yours Sincerely,

Pro. Aimin Gong

College of Hydraulic Engineering Yunnan Agricultural University

E-mail: 13708457658@163.com

 Reviewer1�

Comments 1: The submission overall follows the lab instruction and is straightforward. It mimics the Chinese guidelines and thus based on other international known guidelines like ASTM its generalizing might become difficult. Overall, it fails to highlight gaps or biases in the literature, and provides uncharacterized research gaps leading to unjustified conclusions without meaningful insights or future directions.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. This study strictly adhered to the National Standard of the People's Republic of China: "Method for testing cementitious sand strength (ISO method)" (GB/T 17671-2021), which equivalently adopts the international standard ISO method (International Organization for Standardization).The "Conclusions" section has been revised accordingly, with modifications highlighted in red. Furthermore, this section has been supplemented with the limitations of the present study and specific aspects warranting further investigations.

Comments 2: Most of the references are in Chinese which are not applicable for international readers

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We agree with this comment and have supplemented the references in the revised manuscript. The revised content is indicated in the References section, highlighted in red.

Comments 3: Structurally disorganized. It doesn’t follow the IMRAD. It has figs with different parts while almost none of them either in the context or in the captions have been mentioned or discussed. For example, Fig 7, 15.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. We have restructured the manuscript according to IMRAD format, which now includes not only the core sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) but also the title, author affiliations with complete addresses, abstract, keywords, and reference list. Additionally, detailed captions have been added to all figures, and relevant discussions have been substantially expanded. We appreciate your understanding of these essential revisions.

Comments 4: Sensitivity analysis as described in this work is DECLINED to be accepted

Response 4: We completely agree with your opinion and consent to remove the sensitivity analysis section from the manuscript.

Comments 5: Discussion on XRD Lack of convincing and documented Discussion: technical limitations/uncertainty analysis/feasibility study and possibility for large scale use/benefits to industry/solid comparison with other works to show the improvement/the impact of bias of the used data on the results/…

Response 5: Thank you for your relatively comprehensive discussion and suggestions regarding the XRD analysis. In response to the comments on the paper, this study, based on the phase analysis function of XRD, determines the types, contents, and structures of the various constituent phases in the material through qualitative and quantitative analysis of the crystal composition. The revised and supplemented content can be found in the red annotations on pages 17 to 19, specifically in section " XRD Analysis". Furthermore, we fully concur that the research on "the potential for large-scale application" is insufficient. Future research needs to delve deeper into the adaptability of alkali-activated geopolymer cementitious materials for different engineering application scenarios. While the study provides the optimal dosages for the two types of alkali activators, the reliability of these findings compared with other research also requires further investigation.

Comments 6: Substandard English/unreflective and general keywords/…

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback on the linguistic quality and keyword selection of our manuscript. In response to your suggestions, we have implemented comprehensive revisions with detailed adjustments. Additionally, the Conclusions section has been augmented with recommendations for future research, as highlighted in red.

Comments 7: When we discuss setting time, procedure requires continuous updating (dynamic databases) while this work doesn’t provide a solution for uniformly normalizing dynamic databases via different factors. Search for new approaches via keywords like normalizing large scale sensor-based data with an automated method …

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We fully concur with this comment. The time settings specifically prioritize controlling the initial and final setting times of the cementitious materials. In this study, the initial setting time was configured to be no earlier than 45 minutes, while the final setting time was set not to exceed 600 minutes. The tests were conducted in accordance with the Chinese National Standard "Test methods for water requirement of normal consistency, setting time and soundness of cement" (GB/T 1346-2011), utilizing a Vicat apparatus. Regarding novel measurement methodologies, such as sensor-based data acquisition systems, these represent an important direction for future research endeavors.

Comments 8: In terms of the strength (Fig 5, 6…) you may benefit from other works like https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41062-016-0016-9...

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestions. Regarding the strength analysis, we have added the test values for compressive and flexural strength to the figures, as seen in Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8. Furthermore, we have carefully studied your article. The multivariate statistical method used for predicting the strength of marl has provided us with important insights for optimizing the correlation analysis between the microstructure and strength of alkali-activated cementitious materials. In future work, we will draw upon this method to delve deeper into exploring the quantitative relationship between the evolution process of hydration product phases and the ultimately achieved mechanical properties of the material.

Comments 9: Conclusion should be justified

Response 9: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and have accordingly revised and supplemented the Conclusions section, with all modifications highlighted in red for your review.

Comments 10: Reference list should follow the journal guidelines and supplemented by DOI link

Response 10: We sincerely thank you for your thorough review and constructive suggestions. Regarding the issues of reference formatting and DOI supplementation, we will implement the following revisions: Strictly adhere to the journal's style requirements by unifying citation formats, supplementing DOI links for all references, providing a note indicating the absence of DOI for entries without one, and conducting a line-by-line verification of author names, publication years, punctuation marks, and other details to ensure full compliance with academic standards.

Reviewer 2:

Title

Comments 1: The title should be rephrased, fly ash and slag should appear in the title.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your suggestion! The manuscript title has been revised to: “Study on the Hydration Product Phase Evolution and Mortar Strength of Alkali-Activated Slag and Fly Ash Systems”.

Abstract

Comments 1:The abstract lacks quantity, include results obtained for compressive strength and flexural strength. Ensure that you contrast between results obtained for slag and fly ash.

Rewrite the abstract to improve readability。

Correct misspelt words

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the abstract to add the results of compressive strength and flexural strength tests, clarify the difference in strength between slag and fly ash under alkali excitation, and modify the content as indicated in red on lines 26-29 of page 2. Spelling errors have also been corrected

Introduction

Comments 1: The justification for the study is not well established. Improve on this Rephrase sentence: is China's major contributor to emissions.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions. In the Introduction section, we have supplemented the background and significance of this study, adding a detailed discussion on alkali-activated geopolymer cementitious materials as a green alternative to cement. The revised content is marked in red annotations in lines 37–47 on pages 2–3 (Introduction section).Of course, as a substitute for cement, its engineering applications require further in-depth exploration and discussion. Additionally, the wording throughout the text has been revised.

Comments 2: se fullstop (.) before The Start as a new paragraph。

Response 2: We fully accept your suggestions and have revised the relevant sections accordingly.

Methods

Comments 1: Improve this paragraph to aid coherency. Also provide pictures of the materials used. It is important to provide the particle size distribution of the slag and the fly ash.

Response 1: We fully endorse this comment and have supplemented the manuscript with micrographs of the raw materials employed, as shown in Fig. 1. Additionally, the particle size distribution ranges of slag and fly ash have been incorporated into the materials description section. These revisions are highlighted in red on page 5, lines 99-102.

Comments 2: Provide detailed information about this procedures. Just as was done for compressive strength. Describe all the testing methods to a great detail in different subsections. XRD, FTIR, TAM, BSE

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate your thorough suggestions! The testing methods, including XRD, FTIR, TAM, and BSE, have been described in detail in the specimen preparation and testing sections. The change can be seen in red on pages 7 to 9, lines 126-174.

Results

Comments 1: What do you mean by change rule diagram.

The sentence is too long. Consider breaking the sentences to improve readability.

Response 1: We sincerely apologize for the inaccurate terminology " rule diagram" and have revised it. The change can be seen in red on pages 9 to 10, line 178-179. Additionally, overly lengthy sentences throughout the manuscript have been streamlined for enhanced clarity.

Comments 2: improve readability. Discuss relative to existing literature

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made revisions to improve readability and strengthen the discussion with existing literature.

Comments 3: The method for sensitivity analysis was not captured in the methods.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your thorough review of the manuscript and your valuable feedback. During the revision process, we decided to remove the section on sensitivity analysis from the original manuscript. This decision was made to preserve the core focus and overall integrity of the article.

Comments 4: Highlight the important minerals and show the observable changes using inscribed rectangles.

Response 4: We recognize the merit of highlighting mineral phases as proposed. However, the current analytical methodology yields data at a scale where precise mineral boundary delineation remains technically challenging.

Comments 5: FTIR analysis not FIRT Analysis

Introduce a shape here to call the reader to the difference in intensity.

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate you careful reading and valuable feedback. The term "FIRT" in the section title has been corrected to "FTIR". FTIR analysis has supplemented the difference in strength of slag and fly ash hydration systems under alkaline excitation. See pages 20 to 21, lines 378 to 395 marked in red.

Comments 6: Improve the discussion by making reference to recent literature. (Hydration characterization)

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate your suggestion to improve the discussion by incorporating recent literature on hydration characterization. In response, we have expanded the discussion in Section The revised content can be found in the red-highlighted text on page 24, lines 435–541.

Comments 7: Describe the method in detail under the method section. (Pore physical phase distribution and pore structure characteristics)

Response 7: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. As requested, we have added a detailed paragraph in the Methods section elaborating on the experimental procedures. highlighted in red on page 9, lines 164-167.

Comments 8: Consider rephrasing the sentence. Also improve this section with information from literature. What is the ideal pore area for geopolymer composites based on previous attempts by other researchers?

Response 8: We sincerely appreciate your suggestions. We have revised the sentences with problems in the paper's expression. Furthermore we analyzed the changes in pore number, maximum pore size, and total pore area. See pages 22 to 23, lines 400-417 marked in red, and point (3) in the "Conclusion".

Conclusion

Comments 1: Provide a brief information about the purpose of the study before itemising the conclusions. Also, include the limitations of this study after the conclusion. Furthermore, I will suggest you give the entire manuscript to a native English speaker to improve the grammar, punctuation and sentences. There are a lot of grammatical inconsistency.

Response 1: We fully endorse this recommendation. The opening paragraph of the Conclusion section now explicitly states the research objectives, while the concluding segment has been supplemented with the study's limitations. Additionally, comprehensive refinements have been made to grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure throughout.

Reviewer 3:

Comments 1: In the introduction, the sentences are too long; kindly consider shortening them by rewriting for better understanding.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. The introduction section has been revised to shorten overly lengthy sentences, improve clarity, and enhance readability. The change can be seen in red on pages 2 to 5, in the introduction.

Comments 2: Authors used terms like “alkali excitation, alkali-inspired, alkaline-stimulant” in some places, and in some other places it is alkali-activation; recommended to use the same term for the developing process.

Response 2: Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript and for pointing out the inconsistency in terminology usage. We fully agree with your suggestion. Accordingly, we have adopted the standardized term "alkali-activation" and its related derivatives—such as "alkali-activated" and "alkali activator"—consistently throughout the manuscript to describe this process and relevant materials. This enhances the rigor and readability of the paper.

Comments 3: The material is a green geopolymer cementitious material that can replace cement” This sentence is repeated in the introduction.

Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. We have removed the redundant sentences and improved the phrasing.

Comments 4: In the introduction, the authors mentioned the main components of slag as silica and alumina, but the XRF results show that the main components are calcium oxide and silica oxide. Kindly check.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. We apologize for this error and have corrected it. The corrected content is marked in red from lines 54 to 56 on page 3.

Comments 5: The introduction has to be rewritten by considering delivering ideas properly with short and clear sentences.

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. The introduction section has been thoroughly revised to enhance clarity and conciseness. Long sentences have been simplified, and key ideas are now presented in a more logical and reader-friend

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 2.doc

pone.0338119.s002.doc (35.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Parthiban Kathirvel

10 Oct 2025

Dear Dr. Gong,

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 Nov 24 2025 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.

  • 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,

Parthiban Kathirvel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The responses are appreciated. However, some technical justifications are required.

I actually was lost with the responses and place of modification corresponding to each comment and sub-comments. It is expected to see the responses for each individually

As you pretty well-mentioned ‘limitations of the present study and specific aspects warranting further investigations.’, the comments #5, 7 and 8 strictly emphasizes on technical limitations and you also notified them in your responses. Therefore, to enrich the literature, the draft in the section of technical limitation’ as a sub-category of the Discussion section should support and document these concerns. The suggestions were provided in the last round and you also have open hand to add new references to ensure the backup.

The problem regarding the feasibility study and capacity for working in large scale industrial applications also need to be added.

Please revisit the literal aspects to minimize the grammatical syntaxes.

Good Luck

Reviewer #4: The manuscript is poorly written and presented. I am unable to read the manuscript. All aspects of writing in English are completely ignored. Perhaps the authors can get assistance in English writing. One can not follow exactly how the experimental work was carried out.

Reviewer #5: After thorough review, the manuscript has successfully addressed all previous concerns and fully meets the scientific standards for publication. The paper is recommended for acceptance in its current form.

**********

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 #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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.

PLoS One. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0338119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0338119.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


16 Oct 2025

of various activators with different geopolymers, along with the associated strength prediction models.

Comments 3: The problem regarding the feasibility study and capacity for working in large scale industrial applications also need to be added.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for their valuable comments. We have now added the following statement to the Introduction section: "The utilisation of alkali activators to solidify industrial by-products and waste materials as cementitious alternatives not only effectively reduces the consumption of natural resources but also enables the harmless disposal and resource recovery of waste."

Comments 4: Please revisit the literal aspects to minimize the grammatical syntaxes.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised to address the grammatical and syntactic issues.

Comments 1: The manuscript is poorly written and presented. I am unable to read the manuscript. All aspects of writing in English are completely ignored. Perhaps the authors can get assistance in English writing. One can not follow exactly how the experimental work was carried out.

Response 1: We wish to express our gratitude for the reviewer's comments regarding the language and presentation of our manuscript. These suggestions have been duly incorporated to improve the clarity and readability of the paper.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer #4.docx

pone.0338119.s003.docx (17.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Parthiban Kathirvel

27 Oct 2025

Dear Dr. Gong,

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 Dec 11 2025 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.

  • 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,

Parthiban Kathirvel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear colleagues

When we discuss technical limitations, they MUST be documented and thus references are required. This leads readers to find what really has been done and what is missing and what can be done for future studies. Therefore, with respect, your responses cannot be accepted in the current format. The reasons and suggestions have been provided in previous rounds. Furthermore, it is expected to see updates within the literature review process.

Conclusion is the conclusion. It is the last part of your puzzle and should show the summary of your sharp findings. Limitation MUST be moved to Discussion section.

Hope that the above mentioned clarifications help you with further concise responding.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript has adequate data that is presentable for publication. However, the manuscript still has been written in poor English. Methodology has improved but will still require to be worked on.

Results and discussion is poorly done. There is no scientific presentation of the results and discussion

**********

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 #4: Yes:  Jackson Wachira Muthengia

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0338119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0338119.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


5 Nov 2025

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We sincerely thank you for your letter and the valuable comments from the reviewers on our manuscript titled " Hydration Product Phase Evolution and Mortar Strength Development in Alkali-Activated Slag and Fly Ash Systems" (PONE-D-25-18472R2). These suggestions have been highly instructive in improving the quality of our paper. Based on the reviewers' feedback, I have thoroughly revised the manuscript, with all changes highlighted in red. We hope that the revised version meets the publication standards of your journal.

The reviewers' comments are presented in italics, with specific issues numbered. I have addressed each of these points individually, and my responses are provided in standard font and highlighted in red. I have made every effort to improve the manuscript and deeply appreciate the hard work of the editors and reviewers. The successful publication of this research is crucial for the completion of my degree application, and I sincerely hope that the revised manuscript will be accepted.

Thank you once again for your comments and suggestions.

Sincerely,

(Student's Name)

Supervised by: Professor Aimin Gong

College of Hydraulic Engineering, Yunnan Agricultural University

Email: 13708457658@163.com

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer_#4_auresp_3.docx

pone.0338119.s004.docx (17.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Parthiban Kathirvel

13 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Gong,

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 Dec 28 2025 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.

  • 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 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,

Parthiban Kathirvel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: After the following minor revision, the paper can be moved toward next step.

1. Reference format issues. For example, 11, 24, 25, , … [J/OL]!!!, …

2. Remove the Chiness characters

3. Writing Styles, some with all capital letters, some not, …

4. Some references like 7, 8, 14, 28, … don’t have any authors!!!!

5. Some references don’t have any DOI, like 5, …

6. Use DOI link (https://doi.org/...)

Reviewer #4: The manuscript is well done as per the requirements. Initially, the manuscript had a lot of grammatical errors. The manuscript is now well done.

**********

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 #4: Yes:  Jackson Wachira Muthengia

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0338119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0338119.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 4


16 Nov 2025

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on our manuscript titled "Study on the Phase Evolution of Hydration Products and the Strength of Mortar in Alkali-Activated Solid Waste Materials" (PONE-D-25-18472R3). We are especially grateful for the insightful suggestions provided throughout multiple rounds of revision, which have deepened my understanding of academic rigor and significantly contributed to improving the quality of this paper. In response to your feedback, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, with all changes highlighted in red.

The reviewer’s comments are presented in italics, and our responses are provided in regular font, also highlighted in red. We have made every effort to refine the content of the paper and sincerely thank you for your diligent work. We hope that the revised manuscript meets with your approval.

Thank you again for your comments and suggestions.

Yours Sincerely,

Pro. Aimin Gong

College of Hydraulic Engineering Yunnan Agricultural University

E-mail: 13708457658@163.com

Reviewer1�

Comments : After the following minor revision, the paper can be moved toward next step.

1. Reference format issues. For example, 11, 24, 25, , … [J/OL]!!!, …

2. Remove the Chiness characters

3. Writing Styles, some with all capital letters, some not, …

4. Some references like 7, 8, 14, 28, … don’t have any authors!!!!

5. Some references don’t have any DOI, like 5, …

6. Use DOI link (https://doi.org/...)

Response : Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper according to your feedback and have highlighted all changes in red within the text. The specific modifications are as follows:

1.Reference Format: We have thoroughly checked and standardized the reference format. Irregular identifiers such as [J/OL] in entries (e.g., 11, 24, 25, etc.) have been corrected.

2.Removal of Chinese Characters: All non-essential Chinese characters have been completely removed from the manuscript.

3.Writing Styles: Inconsistencies in capitalization have been corrected to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.

4.Missing Authors: Author information missing from reference entries (e.g., 7, 8, 14, 28, etc.) has been added.

5.Addition of DOIs: Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) have been added for all applicable references (including entry 5, etc.).

6.DOI Links: The links for all references with DOIs have been uniformly formatted to the https://doi.org/... style.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer 1.doc

pone.0338119.s005.doc (29.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 4

Parthiban Kathirvel

18 Nov 2025

Hydration Product Phase Evolution and Mortar Strength Development in Alkali-Activated Slag and Fly Ash Systems

PONE-D-25-18472R4

Dear Dr. Gong,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Parthiban Kathirvel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Parthiban Kathirvel

PONE-D-25-18472R4

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gong,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Parthiban Kathirvel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review PLOS 1.pdf

    pone.0338119.s001.pdf (17MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 2.doc

    pone.0338119.s002.doc (35.5KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer #4.docx

    pone.0338119.s003.docx (17.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer_#4_auresp_3.docx

    pone.0338119.s004.docx (17.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer 1.doc

    pone.0338119.s005.doc (29.5KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files are available from the figshare database (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29365352).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES