State and Prospects of Developing Nuclear–Physical Methods and Means for Monitoring the Ash Content of Coals
, Diana Ibragimova 1 and Anar Tebayeva 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1: line 82, such bulk citing is not recommended, it is better to discuss the findings in each publication at least.
2: table 1, it is better to list the publication references to each operating principle.
3:please give more discussion on a,b,c,d in figure 1. especially the difference
4: line 147, is Z also as ash content? Ad in former text is ash content, it is better to unify such definition in whole text.
5: where was the content about the figure 2 discussed in text?
6: the logic of review in section 2 was not clear, if if follows the sequence mentioned in abstract, the subtitles should be arranged , 2.1, 2,2, not gamma-annihilation method. before that, mainly discussion on backscatter, while, there was noting similar as subtitle.
in general, the paper was not well organized and hard to follow the logic. it is suggested to re-arrange the structure and then for latter review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
my comments are attached.
Best regards.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work under review studies the ash content of coal using various nuclear physics methods.
As the authors themselves mention, it is a review of currently applied methods, highlighting the drawbacks and unreliability of the results generated due to the lack of homogeneity in coal samples.
The authors propose a series of nuclear physics methods that avoid the lack of precision in the tests, along with their respective descriptions and advantages.
For a better evaluation of the work, please answer the following questions:
What is the main question addressed by the research? It seeks methods to quantify the ash content of coal with the least possible error.
Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? The objective of the work is very important since knowing the amount of ash content is fundamental for its industrial exploitation and distribution.
Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/is not the case. This quantification is certainly essential and of great importance in the field of coal, although the proposed methods may be costly for current operations.
What does it contribute to the subject area compared to other published literature? The authors present a well-structured and comprehensive review, which may lead to the selection of one or more methods for ash measurement.
What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? The methods are very well described. Only a few comments are included at the end of the text.
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? And do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.
Are the references appropriate? The bibliography is appropriate.
Any additional comments on the tables and figures?
Line 123: Explain the differences between a, b, c, and d.
Figure 2 is not mentioned in the text.
Figure 3: Who is c? Explain the differences between a, b, and c.
Figure 4 is not described in the text
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter revision, more information were added, and logic is more smooth. it can be accepted for publication.
