Pozzolanic Reactivity and Hydration Products of Cementitious Material Prepared Using Molybdenum Tailings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As the manuscript stated, utilizing molybdenum tailings to prepare tailings cementitious materials can conserve the amount of cement used in concrete, reduce the impact of cement 46 industry on the environment, and reduce production costs. However, the authors did not discuss the current state of research in this area in the introduction, resulting in a failure to reflect the novelty and innovation of the work. Therefore, the first suggestion is to rewrite the introduction.

The second suggestion is to use a table to summarize the phase change in Figure 2.

The third suggestion is that the quality of the SEM image in Figure 3 is not high, it cannot be observed clearly, and the key information such as the enlarged size is missing, so it is recommended to re-characterize.

The fourth suggestion is that it is not convincing to use FI-IR to characterize the surface chemistry of materials to explain the point of view in the manuscript. Please supplement XPS characterization.

Finally, the format of the manuscript needs to be carefully revised. There were many non-standard and mistakes, such as 138 lines with more commas.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you so much for your review and comments. We are so glad to hear from you about the valuable suggestions and comments, which helped us improve our manuscript.

According to the comments we received, we have modified our manuscript carefully. All changes were highlighted in the text (in red). Thanks again for your time and review. Look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Biyao Geng, Zongwen Wang, Shihu Shi, Kun Wang, Jianxun Fu, Zhenjiang Wen and Xiaogang Guo

Corresponding Author: Shihu Shi

Reply to Editor

Dear Professors,

We are appreciated for the opportunity to revise our manuscript (processes-2255368). Based on the reviews’ comments, we have carefully revised our manuscript.

We are grateful for your kind consideration for our work, and hope the revised manuscript could achieve the requirements for further publication of processes. We believe the revised manuscript is clear apprehensive and more suitable for the journal.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Reply to Reviewers

Reviewer #1:

• As the manuscript stated, utilizing molybdenum tailings to prepare tailings cementitious materials can conserve the amount of cement used in concrete, reduce the impact of cement 46 industry on the environment, and reduce production costs. However, the authors did not discuss the current state of research in this area in the introduction, resulting in a failure to reflect the novelty and innovation of the work. Therefore, the first suggestion is to rewrite the introduction.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your comments, we have rewritten the Introduction section to include the current research status in this field.

• The second suggestion is to use a table to summarize the phase change in Figure 2.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added Table 8 to list the XRD patterns of the typical components in the molybdenum tailing powder and the past mixtures at various ages.

• The third suggestion is that the quality of the SEM image in Figure 3 is not high, it cannot be observed clearly, and the key information such as the enlarged size is missing, so it is recommended to re-characterize.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. I am very sorry that the quality of SEM images is not high due to limited equipment and sample preparation conditions. We will better prepare samples in future research and carefully characterize them using better equipment.

• The fourth suggestion is that it is not convincing to use FI-IR to characterize the surface chemistry of materials to explain the point of view in the manuscript. Please supplement XPS characterization.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. In future research, we will definitely use XPS for characterization as evidence.

• Finally, the format of the manuscript needs to be carefully revised. There were many non-standard and mistakes, such as 138 lines with more commas.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your suggestion, we have made hundreds of modifications to the article and further refined the language. We have added specific surface area, characteristic particle size, and tailings particle morphology research and analysis of molybdenum tailings at different grinding times to make the entire study more complete.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

# Introduction

1. Literature review is not present. All section covers only one citation.

2. Novelty statement missing.

3. The most recent reference is from 2013.

# Materials and Methods

1. All equipment for materials characterization must be detailed by means of manufacturer, model an analysis methodology. This must be taken into account before the presentation of the 1st result (Tables 1 and 2; Figure 1).

# Results and Discussion

1. XRD results by means of peak marking without quantitative assessment of mineralogical phases is an outdated approach. This should be corrected.

2. Authors must relate the results in Table 1 and Figure 1 for a clear discussion of the nature of the sample.

3. What technique was used for the analysis in Table 1 and 2?

4. Regarding the SEM analysis, how the authors Aft structures?

# Overall Assessment

1. The manuscript is completely distant of the typical approach applied in scientific writing.

2. The manuscript cannot be accepted in the present form without a deep redrafting of an adequate document. The state of the art must be covered in literature review, novelty statement must be clearly written, methodology must be presented in detail for reproducible effect in future works and the discussion must be wide as well as based in self-contained results.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you so much for your review and comments. We are so glad to hear from you about the valuable suggestions and comments, which helped us improve our manuscript.

According to the comments we received, we have modified our manuscript carefully. All changes were highlighted in the text (in red). Thanks again for your time and review. Look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Biyao Geng, Zongwen Wang, Shihu Shi, Kun Wang, Jianxun Fu, Zhenjiang Wen and Xiaogang Guo

Corresponding Author: Shihu Shi

Reply to Editor

Dear Professors,

We are appreciated for the opportunity to revise our manuscript (processes-2255368). Based on the reviews’ comments, we have carefully revised our manuscript.

We are grateful for your kind consideration for our work, and hope the revised manuscript could achieve the requirements for further publication of processes. We believe the revised manuscript is clear apprehensive and more suitable for the journal.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Reply to Reviewers

Reviewer #2:

# Introduction

• Literature review is not present. All section covers only one citation.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have added a literature review section to describe the research progress in the field of comprehensive utilization of molybdenum tailings.

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have added 7 references in combination with the literature review section and other new content. The latest one is in 2017.

• Novelty statement missing.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have added a novelty statement. There are currently no reports on the study of pozzolanic activity and hydration products for a single component of molybdenum tailings.

• The most recent reference is from 2013.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have added 10 references in combination with the literature review section and other new content. The latest one is in 2017.

# Materials and Methods

• All equipment for materials characterization must be detailed by means of manufacturer, model an analysis methodology. This must be taken into account before the presentation of the 1st result (Tables 1 and 2; Figure 1).

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have included the corresponding analysis and testing methods (Tables 1 and 2), equipment manufacturers, and corresponding parameters (Figure 1) before giving the first result.

# Results and Discussion

• XRD results by means of peak marking without quantitative assessment of mineralogical phases is an outdated approach. This should be corrected.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. Please forgive me. Due to equipment and funding constraints, we have not conducted mineralogical phase testing, and we will add this testing and analysis method to our subsequent research.

• Authors must relate the results in Table 1 and Figure 1 for a clear discussion of the nature of the sample.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we conducted a preliminary combined analysis of the results of Table 1 and Figure 1 in Section 2.2.

• What technique was used for the analysis in Table 1 and 2?

Response:

Thank you for your question. The chemical composition analysis in Tables 1 and 2 mainly uses EDTA dissolution method and 721 spectrophotometer measurement. In combination with your previous modification comments, we have added this part of explanation in Section 2.1

• Regarding the SEM analysis, how the authors Aft structures?

Response:

Thank you for your question.. According to the SEM results, we mainly judged Aft as a hydration product based on the morphology characteristics, combined with the previous XRD test results, main chemical composition, and main mineral composition analysis results, and combined with the previous author's research on other high silicon type tailings hydration products [Reference 19], and the single mineral hydration product research results [Reference 20, 21].

 # Overall Assessment

• The manuscript is completely distant of the typical approach applied in scientific writing.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We will further increase the scientific and rigorous nature of our future research work based on your suggestion

• The manuscript cannot be accepted in the present form without a deep redrafting of an adequate document. The state of the art must be covered in literature review, novelty statement must be clearly written, methodology must be presented in detail for reproducible effect in future works and the discussion must be wide as well as based in self-contained results.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have conducted an overhaul of the article, clearly stated the test method in detail as much as possible, and will further improve it in future research based on your other suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper provided some interesting results and useful information. However, there are still some revisions needed to be made. Here are the comments.

1. In Fig. 1, the chemical formulas of these crystalline phases are suggested to be provided for reader to grasp the points easily.

2. In lines 118to 121, was the amount of hydration products analyzed in the experiments? This assessment should be based on a experimental result. Otherwise, a citation of reference is required.

3. In line 137, what did “the most consumed mineral” mean? Please explain it in more detail.

4 In Fig. 3, space is needed between Fig. a1 and a2 (same as b1 and b2 and c1 and c2).

5. In eq 1, is “AlO^2-“ correct? Please check and revise it. Since it’s a chemical equation, “=” might be a little strange.

6. There are some vague sentences and grammar errors. Please check this manuscript carefully and revise.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you so much for your review and comments. We are so glad to hear from you about the valuable suggestions and comments, which helped us improve our manuscript.

According to the comments we received, we have modified our manuscript carefully. All changes were highlighted in the text (in red). Thanks again for your time and review. Look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Biyao Geng, Zongwen Wang, Shihu Shi, Kun Wang, Jianxun Fu, Zhenjiang Wen and Xiaogang Guo

Corresponding Author: Shihu Shi

Reply to Editor

Dear Professors,

We are appreciated for the opportunity to revise our manuscript (processes-2255368). Based on the reviews’ comments, we have carefully revised our manuscript.

We are grateful for your kind consideration for our work, and hope the revised manuscript could achieve the requirements for further publication of processes. We believe the revised manuscript is clear apprehensive and more suitable for the journal.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Reply to Reviewers

Reviewer #3:

• In Fig. 1, the chemical formulas of these crystalline phases are suggested to be provided for reader to grasp the points easily.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have added the chemical formulas of these crystal phases in Figure 1.

• In lines 118 to 121, was the amount of hydration products analyzed in the experiments? This assessment should be based on a experimental result. Otherwise, a citation of reference is required.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. There are indeed errors in the original expression, and we have adjusted this part to read: This result proves that the milled molybdenum tailings have certain pozzolanic reactivity.

• In line 137, what did “the most consumed mineral” mean? Please explain it in more detail.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. This statement is indeed not precise, and we have deleted it.

• In Fig. 3, space is needed between Fig. a1 and a2 (same as b1 and b2 and c1 and c2).

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have increased the spacing between the corresponding images.

• In eq 1, is “AlO2-“ correct? Please check and revise it. Since it’s a chemical equation, “=” might be a little strange.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. There is indeed an error with this subscript, and we have corrected it to “AlO₂^-“.

• There are some vague sentences and grammar errors. Please check this manuscript carefully and revise.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your comments, we have re polished the manuscript and adjusted more than 100 language expressions (in red).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has met the requirements for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript was highly improved.