Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Concentration efficiency as mentioned in the abstract as a motivation for study, was not mentioned in introduction.

 

Author Response

Concentration efficiency as mentioned in the introduction at the last para

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My remarks and necessary corrections are presented in the attached paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Revised as per advice, see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is written on a rather urgent topic - the search and justification of effective methods and technologies of enrichment of low-quality iron-containing raw materials.
There are a number of questions and comments on the article:
1. In the introduction there is a brief analysis of the level of research on this topic. In this field there is quite a lot of literature on enrichment of iron-containing raw materials by reverse flotation. Modern sources on this issue should be considered in more detail.
2. Line 97. There is no period at the end of the sentence.
3. There is no complete chemical or mineralogical composition of this sample.
4. What equipment was used to perform the mineralogical analysis. Were they thin section or polished section?
5. There is no dimensional ruler in Figure 2a.
6. What analyzer was used for the XRD.
7. It says about  liberation, but there is no data (Lines 140-144).
8. What is the justification for the coarseness of the grind (Lines 152-153).
9. How is the data supported (lines 157-161)?
10. There is also a question about the consumption of reagents. Based on analysis of the literature in the article considered too high costs (up to 1.5 kg / t).
11. Illogically arranged figures (8 and 9). First there is a mention of figure 9, and then only figure 8.
12. Equation 10. These dimensions were not mentioned anywhere before.
13. 37.4% is too low an extraction. This raises the question of the feasibility of this technology.
The article can be published after correction and answer to questions and comments.

Author Response

Revised as per advise, see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the scope of the paper seems to be interesting its preparation and some parts are arguable.
Unfortunately, I can not recommend the manuscript “minerals-1826553” for publication.
The English needs revision, it is at times very difficult/impossible to understand.

Abstract section should reflect the manuscript content in an appropriate order,
its novelty and most importantly the main goal of the presented research.  It should be reorganized.

The same situation is related to the introduction section which should be rewritten and focused on the main manuscript scope.

Author Response

Revised , see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Use one referencing style and be consistent.   e.g. Reference like this:    Swamy, K., Suresh, N. and Kumar, P.S., 2022. Resource Management and Utilization of Lean Grade Iron Ore Resources of Karnataka, India. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, 70(5), pp.171-181.   Instead of   Kumara Swamy, N. Suresh and P. Sharath Kumar, Resource Management and Utilization of Lean Grade411
Iron Ore Resources of Karnataka, India Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, 70(5) : 233-241; 2022. DOI:412
10.18311/jmmf/2022/29942   Also, I suggest you read the corrections you've made carefully, to avoid typo errors and for consistency.   An example is:   Figure 8 shows the very fine inclusions of quartz (Q) in Hematite Grains of flotation   H and G should be in lower case, and this should be reflected in the whole text.     What version of MINITAB did you use, please state in the report.
    I will suggest that the paragraghs under Materials and Methods section be separated into 2.1 Materials 2.2 Methods

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review 

the comments raised by you are taken care and the revised manuscript is attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

My remarks and necessary corrections are presented in the attached paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your scrupulous reading of our paper and your comments really increased the value of the paper 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have corrected the comments, but Figure 1 needs to be corrected. The inscriptions are displaced.

Author Response

Thank you very much 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

-

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review