Optimization of Copper Recovery from Cyanide Leaching Solutions Used in Gold–Copper Ore Processing Using Probabilistic–Deterministic Experimental Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This study aims to optimize the parameters of the process of copper precipitation from cyanide leaching solution of gold-copper ores using a probabilistic-deterministic method of experimentation. However, the points below must be addressed before publication in this journal.

 

1.      The manuscript's title does not completely match the research's aim. There is a need to add ‘’in gold–copper ore processing’’ to the title.

2.      The abstract was not well written, mention the quantitive results and optimum conditions in the abstract.

3.      The introduction is not written well, it is a long story.

4. Experimental errors should be included within the manuscript's results or methodology section. What are the experimental errors in this study?

5.      What was the scale of this study? did you have any limitations?

6.      In your opinion, in addition to the factors examined in this research, what are the other factors affecting copper recovery from cyanide leach solution?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

  Some English correction is needed throughout the manuscript along with typo errors here and there.

Author Response

Responses to comments in the attached file. Best regards, Sapinov R.V.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Review

 

on Paper entitled “Optimization of copper recovery from cyanide leach solution using probabilistically-deterministic design of experiment” by Dinara Kassymova, Ruslan Sapinov, Larissa Kushakova, Natalya Kulenova, Zhanserik Shoshay and Meruert Adylkanova

 

It is well known that copper negatively affects the process of gold extraction by cyanide leaching associated with high consumption of cyanide and decrease in the rate of dissolution and extraction of gold from copper-gold complex ores. The purpose of this study was to optimize the parameters of the process of copper precipitation from cyanide leaching solution of gold-copper ores using a probabilistic deterministic method of experimentation. With the help of probabilistic method mathematical models describing the process of copper precipitation from cyanide leaching solution of copper-gold ores was obtained. The method obtained allow to predict, minimize and overcome the negative effect of copper on gold recovery.

The article is well-written, supported by experimental data and mathematical modeling. The obtained results are best illustrated by tables and graphs. The presented schemes of ore processing in Introduction help to better understand the importance of the problem and possible solutions.

However, there are some questions and comments that are to be addressed to.

Abstract

Lines 24-26 The sentence should be completed

Results

-          Table 3 is presented in the text without any explanation and discussion of the presented data. It is supposed that the data presented show the dependence of copper precipitation from the amount or ratio of H₂S.

-          Line 214. It was written that correlation coefficient was R=0,675, while in the legend of Figure 5a R² =0,675. Please clarify which one is correct.

-          Line 213 Equation 5. Does X mean the concentration of sulfidizer (H₂S)?

-          Lines 225 and 241. What do X2 and X3 mean?

-          Line 256. How was the Equation 8 obtained from Equation 4?

-          Line 270. Do the authors have got any data on copper precipitation by H₂S at pH ˂ 3 (pH 2, 2.5)?

 

-          Have the authors performed pretreatment of copper-gold ore by chemical or bacterial-chemical leaching to enhance the copper extraction? 

 

 

Author Response

Responses to comments in the attached file. Best regards, Sapinov R.V.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors,

The manuscript presents an experimental investigation focused on optimizing copper recovery from cyanide leach solutions, which addresses a notable challenge within the gold mining sector, especially concerning gold-copper ores. The authors utilize a probabilistic-deterministic design of experiments to create mathematical models that predict the processes of copper precipitation. While this article demonstrates potential, it is currently rated as lacking in innovation and has several shortcomings, as outlined below. Nevertheless, with substantial revisions to address structural issues and improve the clarity of the English language, its publication could be deemed beneficial.

1. The abstract does not conform to standard conventions. As it is published independently, it is crucial to include the primary findings of the research within this section.

2. In Figure 2, the initiation of the process and the input flow to the circuit are not clearly delineated.

3. The review of prior studies is commendable; however, it is essential to elucidate the significance of this research. What specific innovations does this study introduce that would be advantageous for the ongoing research efforts of other scholars?

4. The text in lines 119 to 121 at the beginning of the Materials and Methods section lacks clarity and requires revision.

5. Lines 129 to 131 present the quantity of copper-bearing minerals with a copper percentage of 0.15%, which appears inconsistent and necessitates further examination.

6. The Materials and Methods section requires a complete rewrite, as the English sentences are weak and difficult to comprehend.

7. In Figure 3, it would be more appropriate to use the term "crushing" instead of "shredding."

8. Given the title of the article, the conditions and methods of cyanidation and gold leaching are of limited relevance. It would suffice to mention the specifications of the cyanide solution. What is the significance of the cyanidation testing methods in this research?

9. The quantity of sodium cyanide utilized (2.5 kg per ton) appears excessively high. Was it not feasible to employ lower amounts? Has there been any optimization regarding sodium cyanide consumption?

10. Overall, the volume of chemicals used in this research seems disproportionately high. Is the amount of coagulant (lime, 800 g per kg) excessive? Is the use of this quantity of lime justifiable from both a technical and economic perspective solely for sedimentation purposes?

11. Furthermore, the consumption of 100 g per liter of sodium sulfide in the process is substantial and could lead to economic and environmental concerns.

12. Table 1 is unclear and difficult to interpret; it requires revision.

13. A "Discussion" section should be incorporated into the manuscript, providing a scientific analysis and appropriate interpretations of the results.

14. Initially, a diagnostic leaching should have been conducted on the sample to ascertain the amounts of free and locked gold in various phases. Is there no information available regarding the quantity of free gold? The amount of gold in the final cyanidation residue has not been specified.

15. In the experimental design for copper precipitation from the cyanide solution, statistical parameters such as the percentage impact of parameters, optimal experimental conditions, and ANOVA tables are absent. Notably, the most effective parameter has not been identified.

16. When stating units, the lowercase "l" should be used for liters.

17. Overall, the structure of the English sentences is quite weak and necessitates a comprehensive review. The sentences lack clarity, rendering the text tedious to read.

18. The conclusion does not adhere to standard conventions and resembles a discussion. Please revise the conclusion to effectively summarize the findings.

Thank you for considering these comments. I believe that addressing these points will significantly enhance the quality of the manuscript.

 

Best Wishes,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The structure of the English sentences is quite weak and necessitates a comprehensive review. The sentences lack clarity, rendering the text tedious to read.

Author Response

Responses to comments in the attached file. Best regards, Sapinov R.V.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the crucial topic of optimizing copper recovery from the cyanide leach solution of gold-copper ores and conducts an in-depth exploration using the probabilistic-deterministic experimental design method, possessing certain value in both theoretical and practical aspects. Its research findings are expected to contribute to technological innovation in the field of gold-copper ore processing and drive the development of the industry. However, there is still room for improvement in terms of content completeness, depth of exploration, and expression standardization, and further refinement is necessary.

Although the paper mentions that the ore used in the experiment was taken from a certain deposit in Kazakhstan, it does not provide a detailed description of the main components and composition of the ore. For example, it fails to clarify the content and distribution of other impurity elements (such as common associated elements like lead, zinc, and iron) in the ore and their impact on the copper precipitation process. These elements may interfere with the precipitation reaction and alter the characteristics and recovery rate of the precipitation products.

The basis for setting each parameter in the leaching process is briefly described. In the grinding parameters, for instance, the reasons for determining a solid-to-liquid ratio of 1:1, a residence time of 1 hour, and an ultimate ore particle size of P80 = 0.057 mm are not thoroughly justified. No consideration is given to the potential chain reactions of changing these parameters on subsequent copper precipitation and overall recovery efficiency. Regarding the selection of sodium cyanide concentration and addition timing, although a certain total consumption is maintained, there is no in-depth analysis of the influence mechanism of different addition modes on the copper leaching rate, selectivity, and the dynamic balance of cyanide consumption.

Author Response

The answer is in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be improved.

Author Response

We would like to begin our responses to the reviewer by thanking him for his helpful and insightful comments that allowed us to improve our article. Below we attach our point-by-point responses to the reviewer's comments. The reviewer's comments are highlighted in black font and the responses in red font to better distinguish them from each other. In the article, edits are also highlighted in red

 

The English should be improved.

 

Response. WE have made some improvements. Shown in green colors. Also in the previous version all the text was corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. I have carefully reviewed your response to the comments and suggestions provided in my previous assessment of your paper titled "[Paper Title]" submitted to Processes Journal. Despite the explanations provided by the authors, it is regrettable to inform you that the concerns raised regarding the paper's significant issues persist, and the overall quality of the manuscript has not been adequately enhanced.

 While the authors have attempted to address the raised concerns in their response, it is evident that the explanations provided do not align with the identified issues outlined in the initial review. Additionally, the majority of the proposed solutions have not been effectively implemented within the revised manuscript. Consequently, the revised version of the paper does not meet the necessary standard for publication and, unfortunately, cannot be considered suitable for inclusion in Processes Journal.

 I appreciate the time and effort invested by the authors in revising the manuscript and responding to the queries raised during the review process. However, I must respectfully decline the submission of the paper for publication based on the aforementioned reasons.

Thank you for considering Processes Journal for the dissemination of your research, and I wish you all the best with future endeavors.

 Warm regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We would like to begin our responses to the reviewer by thanking him for his helpful and insightful comments that allowed us to improve our article. Below we attach our point-by-point responses to the reviewer's comments. The reviewer's comments are highlighted in black font and the responses in red font to better distinguish them from each other. In the article, edits are also highlighted in red

 

 

Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. I have carefully reviewed your response to the comments and suggestions provided in my previous assessment of your paper titled "[Paper Title]" submitted to Processes Journal. Despite the explanations provided by the authors, it is regrettable to inform you that the concerns raised regarding the paper's significant issues persist, and the overall quality of the manuscript has not been adequately enhanced.

 While the authors have attempted to address the raised concerns in their response, it is evident that the explanations provided do not align with the identified issues outlined in the initial review. Additionally, the majority of the proposed solutions have not been effectively implemented within the revised manuscript. Consequently, the revised version of the paper does not meet the necessary standard for publication and, unfortunately, cannot be considered suitable for inclusion in Processes Journal.

 I appreciate the time and effort invested by the authors in revising the manuscript and responding to the queries raised during the review process. However, I must respectfully decline the submission of the paper for publication based on the aforementioned reasons.

Thank you for considering Processes Journal for the dissemination of your research, and I wish you all the best with future endeavors.

 Warm regards,

 

Response.

Thank you for your constructive comments, we have tried to respond to all your comments in the best possible way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf