Next Article in Journal
Dewatering of Mine Tailings Slurries Using Superabsorbent Polymers (SAPs) Reclaimed from Industrial Reject of Baby Diapers: A Preliminary Study
Previous Article in Journal
Risk Assessment of Contamination by Potentially Toxic Metals: A Case Study in the Vicinity of an Abandoned Pyrite Mine
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Effects of Ultrasound on Desliming Prior to Feldspar Flotation

Minerals 2019, 9(12), 784; https://doi.org/10.3390/min9120784
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Minerals 2019, 9(12), 784; https://doi.org/10.3390/min9120784
Received: 26 October 2019 / Revised: 29 November 2019 / Accepted: 11 December 2019 / Published: 13 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Mineral Processing and Metallurgy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research analyses an interesting application of ultrasound technique in the field of the fedspars floatation, in order to improve the efficiency of the separation process and it is surely of scientific interest.

Some suggestion of improvement should be taken into account:

minor spell check are required for english: for example "convensional " to substitute with conventional in the figures 7, 8, 9, 10;

to improve the figure 1, deleting the legend and insert  near the major minerals peaks the corresponding names;

to move in the material and method paragraph the description of ultrasonic technique contained in the praragraph "experimental", that I also suggest to rename "Experimental results";

to specify in the pragraph "Materials and Method" the MLA method...is connected with the SEM analysis? which software has been used? to explain better the table 4 and 5 related to MLA.

in the discussion of the results shoud be proper to insert a graph o table to compare the % in weight of feldspar and quartz on initial samples (U1 and U2) and  their percentage after  conventional floatation and floatation by means ultrasound.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and contributions to increase the quality of the paper. According to your points, we have carefully responded to all of them and inserted into the edited version of the manuscript as well as taking into account of the contributions and comments of the other reviewers and the academic editor of the journal. Many thanks again for your efforts and taking your valuable time.

We would be grateful, if our paper has a chance to be published in the journal.

Regards,

 

COMMENT 1: Minor spell check are required for english: for example "convensional " to substitute with conventional in the figures 7, 8, 9, 10.

RESPONSE 1: The necessary corrections are now on the figures 7, 8, 9, 10.

 

COMMENT 2: to improve the figure 1, deleting the legend and insert near the major minerals peaks the corresponding names.

RESPONSE 2: The necessary changes were made and inserted into manuscript.

 

COMMENT 3: to move in the material and method paragraph the description of ultrasonic technique contained in the paragraph "experimental", that I also suggest to rename "Experimental results".

RESPONSE 3: Corrected.

 

COMMENT 4: to specify in the pragraph "Materials and Method" the MLA method...is connected with the SEM analysis? which software has been used? to explain better the table 4 and 5 related to MLA.

RESPONSE 4: For the measurements presented here, the commercial MLA’s DataView software version 3.1.3. (JKTech, Brisbane, Australia) was used. A related sentence was also inserted into manuscript.

 

COMMENT 5: in the discussion of the results should be proper to insert a graph or table to compare the % in weight of feldspar and quartz on initial samples (U1 and U2) and  their percentage after  conventional floatation and floatation by means ultrasound.

RESPONSE 5: Necessary sentence and graphs were inserted into discussion before the final remarks.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article could be better written.

The description of the experimental part should be improved.

The analysis of the results has important errors and should be clarified.

Lines 254, 255 and 256 show values that are not in accordance with those presented in table 9. If the analysis of the results is done with the "correct" values, it seems to me that there is not a big difference between the two systems. The authors need to discuss this point further.

In line 220 I believe the authors wanted to write tables 6 and 7.

Another small remarks in yellow.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and contributions to increase the quality of the paper. According to your points, we have carefully responded to all of them and inserted into the edited version of the manuscript as well as taking into account of the contributions and comments of the other reviewers and the academic editor of the journal. Many thanks again for your efforts and taking your valuable time.

We would be grateful, if our paper has a chance to be published in the journal.

Regards,

 

COMMENT 1: The article could be better written.

RESPONSE 1: We tried our best in order to improve the quality of the manuscipt after having very useful comments of our respectful reviwers. The necessary fine touches and tunings highlighted by you were arranged through the paper accordingly.

 

COMMENT 2: The description of the experimental part should be improved.

RESPONSE 2: We moved the paragraph containing the description of ultrasonic technique from the heading of material and method to the heading of experimental and changed the heading as “Experimental results".

 

COMMENT 3: The analysis of the results has important errors and should be clarified.

RESPONSE 3: We are sorry for typing mistakes for the numbers and sentences. The necessary changes were made and inserted into manuscript.

 

COMMENT 4: Lines 254, 255 and 256 show values that are not in accordance with those presented in table 9. If the analysis of the results is done with the "correct" values, it seems to me that there is not a big difference between the two systems. The authors need to discuss this point further.

RESPONSE 4: Corrected.

 

COMMENT 5: In line 220 I believe the authors wanted to write tables 6 and 7.

RESPONSE 5: Corrected.

 

COMMENT 6: Another small remarks in yellow.

RESPONSE 6: Necessary changes were done on the manuscipt.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

this study presents an practical method to improve the flotation process. The results are quite interesting. I recommend publication with additional discussion on the cost/practical application with the current flotation circuit.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and contributions to increase the quality of the paper. According to your points, we have carefully responded to all of them and inserted into the edited version of the manuscript as well as taking into account of the contributions and comments of the other reviewers and the academic editor of the journal. Many thanks again for your efforts and taking your valuable time.

We would be grateful, if our paper has a chance to be published in the journal.

Regards,

 

COMMENT 1: this study presents an practical method to improve the flotation process. The results are quite interesting. I recommend publication with additional discussion on the cost/practical application with the current flotation circuit.

RESPONSE 1: We tried our best in order to improve the quality of the manuscipt after having very useful comments of our respectful reviwers. The necessary fine touches and tunings highlighted by you were arranged through the paper accordingly.

As our experiments were conducted on batch scale at the laboratory, we can not make a healthy comparison for cost/practical application with the current flotation circuit. However, we have been continuing our efforts to implement a pilot scale ultrasonic generator and transducer combination to see the real effects. If necessary we can insert this final remark on the discussion and conclusion heading.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author made the corrections requested and the manuscript can be accepted for the pubblication in the present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe that with the corrections that the authors made the article can be accepted for publication.

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.


Back to TopTop