The manuscript describes the study of blocks made of Termite Mound Soil with the addition of Rice Husk, stabilized with Portland cement and reinforced with PET chips. The title corresponds to the content. The authors mainly studied strength properties, these studies were supplemented by chemical studies of mineralogical composition XRD and SEM morphology. Although the tested mixture is, in my opinion, quite primitive (the achieved strengths, especially in compression are very low), I assess the scope of the studies and their quality positively. I have a few comments and questions which I will present in points.
1) I do not fully understand the sentence on page 2, line 78: "compressive strength (0.71–0.99 MPa), and flexural strength (0.21 MPa) compared to cement SEBs" - are these absolute values, or is it about the difference between geopolymer SEB and cement SEB?
2) I suggest shortening the fragment on page 2 in line 95 "20 kN/m² (equivalent to 0.02 MPa)" to just "0.02 MPa"
3) In the production flowchart in Fig. 4, the stabilization by mechanical compaction mentioned earlier in line 184 is missing.
4) What standard covers samples with a size of 200x100x50mm? (line 206)
5) What confirms the strong bonding between PET fibers described in line 356, this phenomenon does not seem to result from photos in Figure 6?
6) The decrease in 28-day strength shown in Figure 10 is very disturbing, it seems to me that this phenomenon requires a broader discussion. Were all the samples made from a single batch? I do not really understand what the delayed microcracking is? What are its causes (drying of samples?) Do the photos confirm it? After all, PET should prevent the effects of cracking, and as the authors point out (line 506) it actually stimulates them.
7) The aforementioned decrease in compressive strength is not correlated in any way with changes in tensile strength (Fig 11). Tensile strength always increases with age. In my opinion, this phenomenon absolutely denies the thesis about the influence of microcracking.

I would like to thank the authors for answering my questions and for their corrections to the text. I have no new comments; the manuscript can be published as is.