Application of Cold Sintering Process for Stabilizing Heavy Metals in Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find attached my comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English is fine. I found only minor mistakes.
Author Response
Dear Esteemed Reviewer,
I am a master's degree student under the guidance of Professor Shen at NCKU, and one of the co-authors, Mr. Wu. Due to Professor Shen's recent health issues, which require him to take additional rest, I have taken the responsibility of responding to the comments provided by the reviewer on his behalf.
I deeply apologize for the extended delay in responding to your comments. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions provided within the PDF document, highlighting the areas of improvement and limitations of our research. Your assistance has contributed significantly to enhancing the quality of our study. On behalf of Professor Shen's research team, I extend our utmost appreciation to you.
Sincerely,
Zhong-En Wu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents a detailed study on the characterization and optimization of the Cold Sintering Process (CSP) for immobilizing heavy metals in fly ash. The authors conducted a series of experiments to determine the optimal conditions for CSP and its effectiveness in immobilizing heavy metals. The paper is well-organized, and the methodology is clearly explained. However, there are some areas that need improvement before the manuscript can be considered for publication:
1- The abstract is a concise summary of the entire research paper and should ideally include key findings and implications. The authors could expand the abstract slightly to briefly mention the experimental results (XRD, SEM, XRF, and EDS) and implications for resource utilization.
2- The introduction provides a good overview of the significance of municipal solid waste incineration and the challenges it poses. Consider adding more context on the environmental and health concerns associated with heavy metal leaching from fly ash. Provide a more direct and focused research objective at the end of the introduction. Clearly state what the study aims to achieve and why it is important.
3- The methodology is adequately described, but some steps could be elaborated upon. For example, the description of the Taguchi experiment and the rationale behind the selection of control factors and their levels could be expanded. Additionally, more details about the equipment and techniques used for XRD, XRF, and SEM analyses should be provided for readers who may want to replicate the study.
4- The results and discussion sections are informative and detailed. The authors present a comprehensive analysis of the experimental results, including XRF composition, XRD analysis, and SEM images. However, the discussion could be enhanced by comparing the obtained results with previous studies in the field to provide context and validation for the findings.
5- Proofreading is needed to correct grammatical errors and improve sentence structure.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
尊敬的審稿人，
我是成大沉教授指導下的碩士生，論文合著者之一吳先生。由於沉教授近期身體狀況不佳，需要額外休息，我有責任代其回複審稿人提出的意見。
對於未能及時回复您的反饋，我深表歉意，並感謝您的理解。您對我們研究中需要改進的領域的簡潔明了的指導對我們的團隊非常有益。我們徹底審查了手稿，進行了改進，包括更全面的摘要、對田口方法級別選擇的進一步闡述、更新的參考文獻以及對結果的擴展討論以及其他改進。修訂詳情載於所附文件。再次感謝您的寶貴反饋，對於延遲提交我們深表歉意。如果還有任何需要改進的其他領域，請隨時提供進一步的指導。
真摯地，
吳忠恩
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract
The author should not use abbreviations in the abstract.
Introduction
The Authors have not clearly mentioned any important limitations and recommendations.
The reviewed manuscript has practical relevance but I fail to see the novelty of the study as similar ones have been published multiple times in literature. The methodology in itself has nothing to add to the current state of art either. Authors are urged to stress how their study differs from previous ones and why it is novel.
Finally, discuss unanswered questions and potential future research. suggest for other researchers to do in their future works.
Materials and Methods
Incorrect use (excess/lack) of articles (e.g. ‘a’, 'the')
Errors in the sentence structure. Authors need to improve the quality of language
Results and Disscusssion
The author should add more annotations to the micro graph.
Conclusions
The conclusion section should have more accuracy and generality.
Reference
The author should quote as new references as possible.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
尊敬的審稿人，
我是成大沉教授指導下的碩士生，論文合著者之一吳先生。由於沉教授近期身體狀況不佳，需要額外休息，我有責任代其回複審稿人提出的意見。
對於未能及時回复您的反饋，我深表歉意，並感謝您的理解。您對我們研究中需要改進的領域的簡潔明了的指導對我們的團隊非常有益。我們徹底審查了手稿，進行了改進，包括更全面的摘要、對田口方法級別選擇的進一步闡述、更新的參考文獻以及對結果的擴展討論以及其他改進。修訂詳情載於所附文件。再次感謝您的寶貴反饋，對於延遲提交我們深表歉意。如果還有任何需要改進的其他領域，請隨時提供進一步的指導。
真摯地，
吳忠恩
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
