Optimization of Mining Sequence for Ion-Adsorbed Rare Earth Mining Districts Incorporating Environmental Costs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an evaluation of the environmental costs associated with different mining sequences in ion-adsorption rare earth element mining regions. The topic is highly relevant, particularly in the context of sustainable resource exploitation and environmental protection. The modeling approach and optimization results are valuable and offer a useful framework for assessing environmental impacts in mining planning. However, the current version of the manuscript remains largely theoretical and would benefit from deeper discussion on how the findings may guide real-world mining practices. Therefore, major revisions are recommended before this manuscript can be considered for publication. The following points should be carefully addressed:

1. There are several minor formatting errors in the manuscript. For example, in line 106, the "e" in "we" is incorrectly formatted (appears as subscript). Please perform a thorough check to correct all typographical and formatting inconsistencies.
2. The authors list a series of assumptions that form the basis of the model, including the use of in-situ leaching as the mining method. Please provide appropriate references or supporting data to justify these assumptions. Are these mining practices widely adopted in the regions studied?
3. The symbol Ce is used to denote the unit production cost. It is unclear whether this cost includes environmental treatment or remediation expenses. Please clarify the definition and scope of Ce, and indicate whether environmental costs are accounted for separately or integrated.
4. While the study focuses on computational optimization and cost evaluation, it lacks discussion on the practical mining or geological principles that may underlie or explain why different mining sequences result in varying environmental costs. Please consider integrating relevant mining science concepts to strengthen the practical relevance of the conclusions.
5. The manuscript currently emphasizes the theoretical computation of environmental cost, but does not sufficiently discuss how the findings could inform actual mining operations. Based on your optimization results, what concrete recommendations can be made to reduce environmental impact? Can this model be used as a decision-making tool for mining policy, planning, or technology development? A more detailed discussion along these lines would greatly enhance the practical significance of the study.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The thesis topic has certain theoretical value and engineering significance. The overall structure of the dissertation is logically organized, with clear language expression and properly designed figures and tables. The multi-objective optimization model constructed in the article is applied to practical cases, and the calculation method is correct. The research conclusions provide valuable insights for rational planning within mining districts. The paper needs further improvement in some aspects.

（1）It is suggested that the author supplement the theoretical analysis of the scheme comparison in the discussion section.

（2）The data source in the case needs further clarification.

（3）The sentences in the abstract should be refined, and some sentences need to be polished again.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript shows the research for rare earth elements ion-adsorption optimisation in order to enhance mining area efficiency. 

The manuscript topic is in the scope of the Sustainability Journal. It is up to date for complex efficiency evaluation of mining, thus, this is the actuality of the manuscript.

Nebertheless, there are few reviewer' comments for manuscript reinforcing:

1. The mathematic model and equations are the fundamental results for this work. Thus, all the variable units should be explained clear. So, that's why all the equations variables should be sentenced with the units.

2. The optimization is described for NPV and environmental costs incorporating. Nevertheless, but mathematical explanation is not fully provided in the manuscript. Some of variables are not shoen like Q of equation (13) and n-max of  equation 14.

3. Algoritms of NSGA-II, NSGA-III, IBEA, and MOEA/D are used in this work. Nevertheless, full explanation of this algorithms are not explained and cited. 
4. The initial data is not shown or referenced in the manuscript. Authors declared, that presented data is available on request. But there is no clear explanation, which kind of data was used for evaluation of 11 mining districts.  As a result, the results transparency looks unclear.

There is no doubt, that the manuscript should be very usefull for scholars. And the clear answers for comments are used to be given.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' thorough and thoughtful responses to the previous review comments. All major concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. The manuscript is now significantly improved in both clarity and scientific rigor. I believe the current version meets the publication standards of Sustainability and can be accepted in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors substantially revised the manuscript. All the recommendations were fixed. The manuscript can be accepted.