Prospects of Processing Tungsten Ores from the Akchatau Deposit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The data in the paper is relatively less, and it is suggested that the experiment can supplement some and improve some sintering kinetics and leaching kinetics.

It is suggested to supplement the phase and leaching residue phase at different temperatures after roasting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents a brief overview of the composition of wolframite ores of the Akchatau deposit and applicable enrichment methods to obtain concentrates for subsequent processing.

The topic is important to minerals and metallurgy engineers. The topic fits the scope of the journal Processes.

However, the manuscript have some drawbacks need to be revised.

1.       Introduction part is too general. In introduction part, the research status or specific problems with regard to the enrichment methods of wolframite ores may be reviewed. Some of the references were missing. The references should be expand.

2.       The composition of ores after sintering and roasting for example, WO3 Na2WO4 should be identified by XRD or some other technique. The CO and CO2 content can be used as a proof for atmosphere but not the ores.

3.       In line 315, the authors have mentioned the work strategy. However, more detailed data should be given to support the results in section 3.3 leaching cake with distilled water, for example the ion concentration after treatment.

4.       For tungsten concentrates from the Akchatau deposit, this manuscript described a method. How to apply to some other deposits?

5.       A slight discussion on the results may be good for readers to get the whole picture of this manuscript and conclusions.

6.       Overall, this manuscript is somehow like a technical report not scientific paper. The studied parameters, mechanisms, proof for results should be given. The conclusion part should be shorten and highlighted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors' article is devoted to the development of technology for processing wolframite ores from the Akchatau deposit (Kazakhstan).

The authors conducted a literature review, studied the object of research and conducted experiments, based on the results of which a technological scheme was recommended.

Notes:

1. In section 2, it would be advisable to indicate how the ore material samples were taken.

2. Fig. 1 - The designation of the (Fe,Mn)WO4 marker under the figure does not correspond to the (Fe,Mn)WO4 peak markers on the diffraction pattern

3. Fig. 2 - Why is the construction of curves limited to only 3 points? This is not informative

1. Fig. 3 - It should be explained why the duration is limited to 90 minutes - there is no alignment of the indicator. In the text after Fig. 3. How can you compare data from different equations essentially 2 (Prout-Tompkins and Erofeev equations), the graphical dependencies are directly opposite.

2. There is no explanation of Figure 5 in the text.

3. Also, please explain the nature of the graph in Fig. 5c in comparison with graph 4b

4. Explain what P1 and P2 mean in Table 4

5. Please clarify what the authors mean by “large-scale laboratory studies”? What has changed compared to conventional laboratory tests?

6. It would be advisable not to describe the technological scheme in words. and present it in traditional graphic form.

7. The list of sources generally reflects the essence of the research being carried out, but it would be desirable to expand it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In the manuscript “Prospects of processing tungsten ores from the Akchatau deposit” an overview of the composition of wolframite ores of the Akchatau deposit and technologies for processing concentrates using NaOH and Na2CO3 by hydro- and pyrometallurgical methods is given, disadvantages associated with both technology and equipment are noted. To develop a technology for processing Akchatau wolframite concentrates, samples of ore materials were taken, the chemical and mineralogical composition of the samples was studied, and enrichment was carried out to obtain rich concentrates.

The comments are as follows:

1. The term GOST 213-73 in the introduction requires additional description since it will not be clear to readers from outside the post-Soviet countries.

2. The introduction requires additions in terms of relevance and links to papers:

- https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/11/7/725

- https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/13/2/312


3. What method was used to determine the chemical composition of the ore presented in Table 1? Information about the method is missing in the materials and methods section. Why are V and Re not presented in oxide form in Table 1? From the text of the manuscript it is not entirely clear how the 3 ore samples presented in Table 1 differ? In Table 1, it is necessary to check the phase subscripts.

4. In the results of the phase analysis, it is necessary to add information about the phase cards from the PDF-2 database.

5. 5. In Figure 1 there is no label on the ordinate axis.

6. In the materials and methods section there is no description of the furnaces and the accuracy of temperature maintenance.

7. In Figure 3a, the ordinate axis in dimension represents the rate, not the degree of transformation.

8. In Figures 3b and 5b, the description of the transformation kinetics has systematic deviations. What physical meaning does the description of a 4th degree polynomial have and what is the physical meaning of the coefficients? The dependences in Figures 3b and 5b should be well described by the Kolmogorov- Avrami equation, and the coefficients of the equation have a physical meaning. It is recommended to use the Kolmogorov- Avrami equation to describe the dependencies in Figures 3b and 5b.

9. Conclusions are very extensive, it is recommended to highlight only the most important points.

The manuscript can be accepted after corrections.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has revised according to the opinion and agrees to publish。

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made sufficient revisions for accpetance of this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments have been eliminated

Reviewer 4 Report

The comments have been corrected and the manuscript can be accepted.

Minor editing of English language required