Studies on Red Mud Material to Use for Combustion of Vietnam Pulverized Coal
, Trong Hung Nguyen 1, Ngoc Bich Hoang 3, Thi Kim Ngan Tran 3,* and Manh Nhuong Chu 4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper "Studies on the red mud material to use for combustion of Vi- 2
etnam pulverized coal" presents the improve of performance of anthracite combustion catalized by red mud. The paper try to give a solution a local problem generate by industrial waste.
The work is clearly presented and the results support the conclusions provided by the authors. However, is necessary that in the introduction the authors using more reference to support the background. Besides, must be re-check the english becuase there are word wrong written or wrong used and use of contractions that are not used in formal language. .
If would possible, that the authors do analyses of the samples before and after to reaction to define the integrity of the catalyst or the sample. The amount of Na, Ca, Al, Fe and Ti would be interesting to compare before and after, in addition a PXRD before and after too.
The authors could provide a comparison with another catalysts to compare the efficient of the red mud against other initiator, using the same parameters : Ignition temperature, burnout efficiency and heat release.
Finally, the authors could be exteded their disscusion due to in its current form, is just a result report. Maybe the comparison suggest in previous point permit explain at authors becuase their catalyst (red mud) improve the performance of anthracite combustion.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We would like to express our gratitude for the Editor and Reviewer’s efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to respond to all issues indicated in the review report sufficiently. In the revised version, we have highlighted the changes to our manuscript using the yellow color. The answers to the questions you raised are detailed here.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reported the combustion of coal using the red mud as a catalyst. The comments are listed below.
(1) as we all know, the red mud is rich in Na Al and Ti. If the red mud is employed to mix together with Pulverized coal into the blast furnace, these elements will affect the BF production. How to consider the adverse effect？
（2） Why did you choose the red mud dosage 2%, 4% and 6%?
(3) Water was added to the mixture of coal and red mud, and the dried. If mix the red mud and coal directly without adding water, the results is good or bad? the experiments should be added using the coal and red mud mixed directly. Because it will be easy to apply into the industry.
(4) The economical analysis should be added.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We would like to express our gratitude for the Editor and Reviewer’s efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to respond to all issues indicated in the review report sufficiently. In the revised version, we have highlighted the changes to our manuscript using the yellow color. The answers to the questions you raised are detailed here.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper "Studies on the red mud material to use for combustion of Vi- 2
etnam pulverized coal" presents the improve of performance of anthracite combustion catalized by red mud. The paper tries to give a solution a local problem generate by industrial waste.
The work is clearly presented and the results support the conclusions provided by the authors. The authors have done some improves in the manuscript in response of referee´s comments. However, I found the same English mistakes. The authors says that they did grammar check, but persist word wrong written or wrong used and use of contractions that are not used in formal language. For example, lines 31, 197.
The authors provide a comparison with others catalysts to compare the efficient of the red mud against other initiator. I suggest add a table compare: Ignition temperature, burnout efficiency and heat release. This one could be improve the understand of results and improve the discussion of manuscript.
Finally, please check the format of the following references: 7, 16, 19, 26, 29 and 30.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We would like to express our gratitude for the Editor and Reviewer’s efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to respond to all issues indicated in the review report sufficiently. In the revised version, we have highlighted the changes to our manuscript using the yellow color. The answers to the questions you raised are detailed here.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors modified the revised manuscript well according to the comments, and it can be accepted for publication after check the English spell and errors.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
We would like to express our gratitude for the Editor and Reviewer’s efforts to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to respond to all issues indicated in the review report sufficiently. In the revised version, we have highlighted the changes to our manuscript using the yellow color. The answers to the questions you raised are detailed here.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
