Mineral Resource Abundance: An Assessment Methodology for a Responsible Use of Mineral Raw Materials in Downstream Industries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper under review deals with a methodology to calculate a Mineral Abundance Index (AI) which can be used by downstream industries to assess the availability and sustainable supply of a fundamental mineral resource of production lines. The methodology is based on a multi-criteria analysis, which takes into account the intrinsic natural mineral abundance in the geo-sphere, its technical-economic mineral abundance, as well as socio-economic factors. The applicability of the proposed methodology to bentonite as natural mineral resource in cosmetic industry is presented and discussed. The paper addresses a topic of great relevance nowadays owing to the importance of minerals in several industries and the incipient scarcity or problematic supply of some of them in the future. Overall, I found the manuscript interesting and very well written and organized, so in my opinion it is worthy of publication in the present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

On behalf of the authors, I would like to thank you for your time spent to review our manuscript entitled "Mineral resources abundance: An assessment methodology for a responsible use of mineral raw materials within downstream industries".

We appreciate your decision to accept our manuscript in the present form and your comments emphasizing the relevance of the topic and the importance for industries to better understand their mineral resources value chain ensure their supply.

We hope that our manuscript will be accepted soon in MDPI Sustainability and this methodology will be used by other dowstream industries.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Nicolas CHARLES and co-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a methodology to calculate Mineral Abundance Index for non-energy minerals. Several areas need improvement to enhance the manuscript's clarity and effectiveness. Here are specific comments for your consideration:

 

1.           Abstract

a.           Authors do not explain what Mineral Abundance means. What is mineral abundance index? Why is it necessary. What about the previous research? Mineral Abundance is not a common term.

b.           Additionally, it would be helpful to provide some context regarding previous research in this field.

c.           Clarify how the methodology was proposed and developed. What inspired this approach? Mention the basis for the methodology's development.

d.           Since it is the "Mineral Abundance Index," consider abbreviating it as MAI instead of AI, which you used.

e.           How this index can be a powerful decision support tool?

2.           Introduction

a.           The introduction should provide a more explicit outline of the research problem, the existing research gap, the objectives of the study, and the broader context. This will help readers understand the significance of the research.

b.           Consider adding a concluding paragraph to the Introduction section that offers readers a preview of what to expect in the following sections. Given the complex structure of the article, this would improve reader comprehension.

3.           Regarding methodology

a.           Method is based on criteria from three spheres: geosphere, technical-economic sphere, and socio-epistemic sphere? The complexity of the methodology could pose challenges in terms of practical implementation. Therefore, it is important to clarify it.

b.           The study relies on published, reliable, and accessible data. However, authors have ignored to provide specific details about the sources of data or how data quality and reliability were ensured. Transparency in data sources and their limitations is crucial for the credibility of the index.

4.           About literature and discussion

a.           The article does not delve into the practical implementation of link between the Mineral Abundance Index and LCA. Providing more details on how the index could be integrated into LCA and its implications for environmental assessments would be valuable.

 

b.           Authors have pointed out the negative impacts of mining but ignored the efforts to promote green and climate smart mining practices. A review of green and climate-smart mining practices and their relevance to mining and climate neutrality should be included. Importantly, it will be essential to highlight how this study can help secure mineral supply for clean energy technologies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are parts where the language and explanations become quite complex.

Author Response

Dear Colleague,

We would like to thank you as the Reviewer #2 for the time spent for proposing suggestions to improve our manuscript.

We present a point-by-point answering to the Reviewer #2: please look at the PDF file enclosed.

Yours faithfully,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, which I have carefully read and assessed as a reviewer.   Your study developed a mineral resources abundance index to determine the presence of minerals used in downstream industries and provided calculations using bentonite as an example.   Overall, I found your research methodology feasible and your conclusions reliable.   However, I recommend a thorough revision of the thesis to address several issues.

1.  Please adjust the abstract to emphasize the innovative nature of your study.

2.  Part II is lengthy;   therefore, I recommend further condensing and streamlining it.

3.  For the bentonite case, please provide justification for your calculations.

4.  The article diagrams are too basic.  It is recommended that you include more detailed illustrations.

5.  In the conclusion section, consider including a summary sentence followed by a detailed overview of the findings from your study.

6. It is recommended to check the language of the full text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, which I have carefully read and assessed as a reviewer.   Your study developed a mineral resources abundance index to determine the presence of minerals used in downstream industries and provided calculations using bentonite as an example.   Overall, I found your research methodology feasible and your conclusions reliable.   However, I recommend a thorough revision of the thesis to address several issues.

1.  Please adjust the abstract to emphasize the innovative nature of your study.

2.  Part II is lengthy;   therefore, I recommend further condensing and streamlining it.

3.  For the bentonite case, please provide justification for your calculations.

4.  The article diagrams are too basic.  It is recommended that you include more detailed illustrations.

5.  In the conclusion section, consider including a summary sentence followed by a detailed overview of the findings from your study.

6. It is recommended to check the language of the full text.

Author Response

Dear Colleague,

We would like to thank you as Reviewer 3 for the time spent for proposing suggestions to improve our manuscript.

We present a point-by-point answering to the Reviewer 3 in the attached PDF file.

Yours faithfully,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised significantly 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the time spent for reviewing our revised manuscript n°sustainability-2638819 and that you noted the efforts made by the authors to comply with your suggestions and comments in this revised version.

We are satisfied that our corrections are accepted by you and that you now consider our manuscript for publication in MDPI Sustainability.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Nicolas CHARLES on behalf of co-authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work entitled “Mineral resources abundance: An assessment methodology for a responsible use of mineral raw materials within downstream industries” is interesting.  The work is good in logic and writing.  I suggest that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after major revision.  However, the following issues should to be clarified, specifically as follows:

1.  The innovation and novelty of this work should be further emphasized in the abstract, which will help readers quickly understand the research significance of this work.

2.  In the Introduction, it is suggested to highlight the problems solved by this work, and what are the complementary effects to the previous research work.

3.  In the Discussion, please further focus on the limitations of this work and the plan of future research, which will help readers to have a deeper understanding of this work.

4.  The Discussion is a bit long, please simplify it.  The innovative conclusions of this work should be highlighted.

5.  Please explicitly add the conclusion.

6.  This manuscript is too long, please trim it down appropriately.

7. Please check the manuscript for language to improve readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This work entitled “Mineral resources abundance: An assessment methodology for a responsible use of mineral raw materials within downstream industries” is interesting.  The work is good in logic and writing.  I suggest that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after major revision.  However, the following issues should to be clarified, specifically as follows:

1.  The innovation and novelty of this work should be further emphasized in the abstract, which will help readers quickly understand the research significance of this work.

2.  In the Introduction, it is suggested to highlight the problems solved by this work, and what are the complementary effects to the previous research work.

3.  In the Discussion, please further focus on the limitations of this work and the plan of future research, which will help readers to have a deeper understanding of this work.

4.  The Discussion is a bit long, please simplify it.  The innovative conclusions of this work should be highlighted.

5.  Please explicitly add the conclusion.

6.  This manuscript is too long, please trim it down appropriately.

7. Please check the manuscript for language to improve readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3,

 

In the framework of this second round review, we would like to thank your for comments and suggestions on our revised manuscript sustainability-2638819.

Please find here enclosed a PDF file where we answered point-by-point to your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Nicolas CHARLES on behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There are too many references. Please simplify them appropriately.

2. In the conclusion part, please divide into sections and emphasize the important findings of this study.

3. If the formula in the paper is not derived by the author, please mark and quote them.

4. The presentation of the figures in the article is too simple, please modify them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please proofread the language carefully.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3, we would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions for this third round.

We hereafter present a point-by-point answering to you (in green).

Yours faithfully,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf