Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented a review paper on the flashing phenomena in metallurgical processing.

The paper is generally well prepared has good scientific soundness and can be accepted for publication after addressing the following points:

The abstract is to be shortened.

The novelty of the paper is to be clearly stated.

A bibliometric study (yearly published papers related to the subject) based on Web of science or Scopus database is to be performed.

If any figure is taken or adapted from other sources, a reference is to be cited in the title of the figure.

A table summarizing the main published papers related to flashing phenomena in metallurgical processing, indicating used flashing technique, the type of the study (experimental, numerical, …), the main results and advantages and disadvantages, is to be added.

References are to be added to tables 1, 2 and 3.

A section dedicated to the economic and environmental aspects may be added.

The paper is to be checked for misprints and grammatical mistakes.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript cannot be accepted.

1.       Please revise the tittle of this manuscript. This paper is focused on flashing process in zinc and alumina Bayer process. The flashing process in pressure hydrometallurgy is the focus. The tittle for metallurgical processing is a too wide topic. Flash smelting related procedures for example in copper and iron flash smelting may be involved.

2.       Merge the two paragraph of the abstract into one paragraph.

3.       The basic descriptions in section 2 to 4 this manuscript is somehow like in textbooks. For example, the figure 1 and flow chart in processes as in figure 2. The basic process were summarized. However, this is common sense for the hydrometallurgists.

4.       The most important point for Rejecting this manuscript is the research status, novelty, critically reviewing, summarizing of the available references were not given!

5.       The section 5 shows a list of references. However, the critically reviewing is missing. Which is the challenging issue and which is to be solved? This is interesting for readers.

6.       The section 6 shows relevant research status. This is good, the thermal analysis, gas-liquid two phase flow numerical simulations, and solid-gas-liquid flow heat transfer were reviewed in a higher level than the review of section 5.

7.       The numerical method on bubbles have been reviewed by many researchers. The review on the bubbles in flashing in pressure hydrometallurgy is recommended.

8.       English language should be improved.

Overall, the research status, novelty, critically reviewing, summarizing of the available references in this specific but not the relevant research topic should be given and improved!

English language should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

An overview on flashing phenomena in metallurgical processing

Review Comments

The research paper makes a valuable contribution to the field of pressure hydrometallurgy by investigating flashing phenomena. The study covers various aspects, including experimental observations, process simulation, thermal analysis, and optimized design approaches. I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing this important topic. I have compiled my review comments below, focusing on specific areas that require attention and clarification. Please note that minor corrections have been highlighted in the attached PDFs.

Abstract

1) Suggestion: The abstract lacks specific details about the research objectives, methodology, and significant findings. I recommend the authors revise the abstract to highlight the key contributions and outcomes of the study.

2) Methods: Although the authors mention they will focus on numerical studies, there's not a clear explanation of the methodologies used in the paper. A brief mention of the specific methods and any data used could help to clarify this.

3) In this abstract, there are several domain-specific terms, which could be challenging for a reader not familiar with the field of hydrometallurgy. Here are a few examples:

Flashing Process: This seems to be a key concept in the paper. The abstract could benefit from a concise definition or description of this process early on, to orient readers who are unfamiliar with the term.

Solid Holdup: This appears to be another domain-specific term that could be explained in simpler language.

CFD-PBM: (Use the Full form)

4) Findings: The abstract hints at findings (the division of the flashing process into solution flashing and slurry flashing, for example) but doesn't provide clear, specific results from the author's own work. If possible, providing a brief overview of the primary results would be beneficial.

 5)Implications: The abstract mentions potential benefits of numerical analysis for system and process optimization, improving flash tanks' life, and reducing operational costs, but it could be clearer about how this particular paper's findings contribute to these benefits. The specific implications or applications of the paper's results might be further emphasized.

 Introduction

1.      The transition from discussing the challenges of pressure hydrometallurgy to introducing leaching and flash boiling could be smoother. In this specific case, the authors discuss the challenges of pressure hydrometallurgy and then move on to discuss the process of leaching and the issue of flash boiling. While these are related concepts, the connection between them is not made very explicit in the text. Authors might consider linking them more directly.

For instance, they could say something like:

Despite the advantages of pressure hydrometallurgy, it does come with significant challenges. Among these is the management of the leaching process, which is a key aspect of pressure hydrometallurgy and has become a major topic in the field. Additionally, the phenomenon of flash boiling presents potential safety risks that must be carefully managed.

2. Sentence in paper "However, the basic scientific research on flash evaporation phenomena in pressure hydrometallurgy is scarce. Zinc and aluminum are two kinds of bulk nonferrous metal, and the oxygen-pressure leaching of zinc sulfide concentrate and alumina Bayer production process are two typical pressure hydrometallurgy technologies. Thus, taking the two processes as a representative sample, this paper reviews the characteristics and numerical modelling of the flash boiling process in pressure hydrometallurgy"

Please clarify what is meant by "characteristics and numerical modelling" of the flash boiling process in pressure hydrometallurgy. Does the author considering physical properties, operational aspects, or something else under characteristics? What aspects of numerical modelling are focusing on? Also it would be helpful if authors could discuss any possible limitations the review might have. This helps the reader understand the scope and boundaries of the research.

3.Sentence in paper “Obviously, in the process of pressure hydrometallurgy, flash boiling is an important procedure to ensure the smooth and safe production, and to improve the thermal efficiency of the system and reduce energy consumption”.

The sentence vaguely outlines the scope by stating the importance of flash boiling, but it doesn't specify what aspects of flash boiling will be explored in the paper.

Other Sections are reasonably well written and Please note that minor corrections have been highlighted in the attached PDFs.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English language used in the research paper is generally of a good standard. The authors have effectively conveyed their research findings and ideas, and the overall readability of the manuscript is satisfactory.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe a review paper should state the research status, novelty, critically reviewing, summarizing of the available references. The authors have made sufficient revision for the references. For a higher level paper, I recommend the authors to make an outlook of future research area or problems need to be solved in the near future. This is very important for the researchers of this field.

Author Response

An outlook of future research area or problems need to be solved in the near future has been given in the conclusion. In order to differentiate, the conclusions and outlook have been divided into two subsections.

Reviewer 3 Report

Revised version has addressed all concerns and is good to go for publication

Author Response

Thank you for your previous detailed modification suggestions, which have helped us improve this paper!