Recycling Quarry Dust as a Supplementary Cementitious Material for Cemented Paste Backfill
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article makes a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable construction materials by demonstrating the effective recycling of QD through calcination. The findings are well-supported by experimental data and have practical significance for mining and construction industries. With minor revisions to improve clarity, depth of analysis, and presentation, the manuscript would be strengthened further.
The authors have addressed all the reviewer's comments in detail. The article has been significantly improved, particularly in Section 3 (Results), where additional experimental descriptions have been included. In its current form, the manuscript is suitable for acceptance.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Recycling quarry dust as a supplementary cementitious material for cemented paste backfill". We are grateful for the constructive comments provided by you. We are pleased to confirm that we have carefully improved clarity, depth of analysis, and presentation, and confident that the current version is significantly strengthened and meets the journal's standards for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe modifications have been basically completed based on the review comments
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageProfessional vocabulary can be appropriately checked and revised
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Recycling quarry dust as a supplementary cementitious material for cemented paste backfill". We are grateful for the constructive comments provided by you，and confident that the current version is significantly strengthened and meets the journal's standards for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter further review, the authors have made revisions based on the feedback provided earlier and there are no substantial new issues. It is suggested that the authors further optimize the abstract and conclusion of the paper, highlighting the innovative points of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Recycling quarry dust as a supplementary cementitious material for cemented paste backfill". We are grateful for the constructive comments provided by you. We are pleased to confirm that we have optimized the abstract and conclusion of the paper, and confident that the current version is significantly strengthened and meets the journal's standards for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have read your revised and newly submitted version of your manuscript and it is a lot better than the previous version. However, there are still many problems that need your attention. You can find all my comments and questions in the uploaded annotated file of your pdf file of your manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English needs to be improved as it contains many errors and many sentences are hard to understand the way they are written due to the word choice and sentence construction. Have someone fluent in English read and correct the manuscript prior to submitting your revised version.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled "Recycling quarry dust as a supplementary cementitious material for cemented paste backfill". We are grateful for the constructive comments provided by you. We are pleased to confirm that we have carefully addressed all points raised in the review report, and confident that the current version is significantly strengthened and meets the journal's standards for publication. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
THank you for making the changes in the revised manuscript. I have only 4 minor issues that need to be resolved.
1) line 124/125 This sentence still does not make any sense as written. It is also incorrect English.
2) Line 159 Avoid the use of personal terms like we in scientific text.
3) Line 3303/331 competitive adsorption of OH- of CO32- in the early stage. This does not make any sense as written and is incorrect English.
4) Figure 10 White text on light gray background is still very hard to read. Use a color that is strongly contrasting with the gray in the photos instead. Scale bars are better visible but the text above the scale bars are still unreadable.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSeveral lines in the corrected manuscript are still in incorrect English. See my comments above.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions raised by the Reviewer for improving the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised based on the reviewer’s comments, and our response to each specific comment is given as follows.
Q1. line 124/125 This sentence still does not make any sense as written. It is also incorrect English.
Response: Agree. We have deleted this sentence.
2) Line 159 Avoid the use of personal terms like we in scientific text.
Response: Agree. We have modified it as follow.
“It is worth noting that samples were vacuum-dried at 60°C for 12 h to largely remove the physically adsorbed water.”
3) Line 330/331 competitive adsorption of OH- of CO32- in the early stage. This does not make any sense as written and is incorrect English.
Response: Agree. We have modified it as follow.
“The weak presence of hemicarboaluminate (Hc, Ca₄Al₂(CO₃)₀.₅(OH)₁₃·6H₂O) was limited by the increased mole ratio of CO3/(CO3+2OH) in the early stage.”
4) Figure 10 White text on light gray background is still very hard to read. Use a color that is strongly contrasting with the gray in the photos instead. Scale bars are better visible but the text above the scale bars are still unreadable.
Response: Agree. We have done everything we can to modify the images, including the color of the image text and the resolution of the images (See revised manuscript). However, due to the limitations of the equipment we used to conduct SEM experiments, the images obtained may have a lower resolution and are expected to be understood by reviewer.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: minerals-3705656
Title: Recycling quarry dust as supplementary cementitious materials for cemented paste backfill
Authors: Yingying Zhang et al.
The introduction contains general words. There is no detailed description of the quarry dust reuse methods with indication of technological parameters (temperature, roasting temperature, concentration of additives, duration of the process and mechanical properties of the cemented paste, etc). It is recommended that the authors add numerical values to the text of this section.
Section 2. line 116-117 and table 1. Write these numbers with two digits after the dot. What is the LOI content?
Figure 2, 4. Authors should sign all XRD peaks.
Figure 3. As far as I can tell, this FTIR curves is turned upside down.
Figure 4. Authors should add the SEM images of these EDX mapping.
Section 3.2.2. Authors should describe the calcination phase changes using chemical reactions. I believe it is necessary to add min 3 reactions.
Section 3.3.2. Authors should add the SEM images of the sample structure after 3 and 28 days.
The conclusion emphasizes sustainability but lacks quantitative data on CO₂ reduction or cost savings compared to traditional CPB binders. Incorporating a life-cycle assessment (LCA) or cost-benefit analysis would strengthen the case for MQD adoption.
Technical errors:
Line 48. Avoid more than 3 references for a fact in one sentence. A maximum of 3 in a sentence is allowed for Minerals. Describe QD reuse methods in detail.
Lin 98. The correct calcite formula is CaCO3, not Ca2CO3.
Section 2.3. Change the topic of the section to “analytical methods”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well written paper on the potential application of quarry (QD) as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in cemented paste backfill (CPB). The following suggestions aim to improve the quality of the paper.
1、The chemical compositions of OPC and calcite should be listed in Table 1.
2、CPB is composed of 90%~50% OPC and 10%~50% QD/MQD, and what are the application scenarios of such mass ratios?
3、Does the QD contain calcite? Why is the diffracted phase not shown?
4、What is the sequence of the decomposition and solid-phase fusion reactions of calcium carbonate during the process of 600°C to 900 °C?
5、The pozzolanic activity of MQD is higher and consumes more CH. On the other hand, the content of CH at 3 and 28 days is relatively high. Please explain clearly.
6、How is packing density measured? Please describe the steps or cite relevant literatures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors defined the lack and need in the literature. The paper can significantly contribute to the literature and the mine operators. The work structure, proposed method and the overall quality of the paper are good. This Paper has a clear idea and respectively well written, as well.
However, some points need revisions.
Comments and Suggestions are as follows:
1、Please illustrate the reasons for choosing a mass concentration of 75%.
2、Generally, after calcination, the peak intensity of MQD in FTIR results should be weakened, yet it had a significant increase why?
3、Section 3.1.3, QD is the abbreviation quarry, and what does RQD stand for ? Please modify it in the figure 4.
4、It is suggested that water film thickness theory should be combined to explain the relationship between fluidity and packing density, so as to be more thorough.
5、Compared with hydration, what is the influence of packing density on the strength development of CPB?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have read with interest your manuscript on the use of QD in cemented pasted backfill. In general it is well written, though sometimes to specialized to be understood by the general reader. This needs some attention. I also have some concerns regarding the results as presented and they must be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. You will find all the details in the annotated uploaded file of your manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
