Comparison of the Effects of Sodium Oleate and Benzohydroxamic Acid on Fine Scheelite and Cassiterite Hydrophobic Flocculation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comment

: This manuscript introduces the research to efficiently separate fine scheelite and cassiterite using flocculation flotation. The explanation of the mechanism for particle size analysis and aggregation, which are important parts of the paper, is not clear.

Comment 1

: Fig. 5, 7, and 9 are optical microscopy images, which require a high-resolution photo, or how the original was processed into the current images.

Comment 2

: Figures 6 and 8 show the particle size of the experimental product. At this time, author used a particle size analyzer that uses light scattering to analyze the particle size. When analyzing the size of particles using this equipment (Mastersizer 2000), did the agglomerated particles separate again during the dispersion process through ultrasonic waves or agitation speed during the sample input process? Therefore in this case, I know that the method of analyzing particles and evaluating the particle size with SEM or a high-resolution optical microscope is widely used. The particle size is a very important variable in this manuscript, it seems to be added to the text whether these considerations are taken into account.

Comment 3

: It is necessary to explain the effect of reagents such as NaOl and BHA and stirring conditions on particle flocculation.

Comment 4

: In the discussion and table 3, R and RI are just calculation results for the passage of time, and I am not sure why author should be explained separately. In order to divide R and RI, it is judged that it will be necessary to further subdivide the time or find a correlation between them.

Comment 5

: A logical explanation is needed as to whether the discussion of Ca and Fe concentration of the pulp water is really necessary in this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Below are some questions and comments to enhance the manuscript.

Fig. 1 has not mentioned in text. It seems there was a mistake with Figs. 2-4.The labels of Fig. 4(b, c) should be checked.

In studied optical microscope images, in order to have an appropriate  comparison, it is recommended to report the size of observed aggregates.

Why didn't the authors provide images related to the presence of Pb²⁺?

In presence of NaOl, why the effects of Pb²⁺on aggregates formation did not study?

In discussion part (–23 μm cassiterite), what is the reason for requiring a higher NOl dosage to forming aggregate?

The activation mechanism of Pb⁺² is recommended to be shown schematically.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In present article, the authors compared the effects of NaOL and BHA on fine scheelite and cassterite hydrophobic flocculation. The results are interesting to readers and important for the effective flotation of fine scheelite and cassterite. 

1. Why do the authors select these two minerals and do the comparison?
2.  Please explain the reason to choose -10um for scheelite and -23 um for cassterite.
3. The introduction needs to be improved.
4. In section 2.1,  98.12% CaF2 might be a mistake.
5. What is the grade of scheelite or cassterite in the flotation tests?
6. Please add the error bar in Figures.
7. In Fig. 5, please unfiy the fonts of 20 um, c or C?
8. In Fig. 10, 11, 12, dish line should be dash line.
9.  The conclusion needs to be improved and make it more clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author explained in response to the reviewers' opinions.

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments are available.