Experimental Study on the Microstructural Characterization of Retardation Capacity of Microbial Inhibitors to Spontaneous Lignite Combustion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,
I enjoyed reading your paper presenting a novel microbial approach to inhibiting spontaneous combustion of lignite coal. The topic is highly relevant, and you make a strong case for the potential advantages of this method over conventional chemical inhibitors. The comparative analyses provide compelling evidence of efficacy and mechanistic insights. With some minor revisions, I believe this is a valuable contribution suitable for publication.
Please find my comments and suggestions below:

    Consider testing the inhibitor on 2-3 additional coal types to determine broader applicability beyond lignite.
    If feasible, conduct a small combustion experiment to directly quantify impacts on ignition.
    Enhance figures by color-coding treatments, increasing axis labels, adding #s, captions.
    Discuss any economic factors, safety benefits, and scalability to broad implementation.
    Elaborate on the proposed mechanisms of pore blocking and group deactivation for clarity.
    Review grammar, sentence structure, abbreviations, parallelism for smoother readability.
    Double check subject/verb agreement for consistent style and clarity.
    Ensure citations and references are in proper journal format for publication.

The list of references should be meticulously formatted to align with the specific requirements outlined by the Fire journal. In particular, each reference should contain the DOI number.

You have done a great job designing and executing a novel study with very promising results. Addressing the comments above will further improve the manuscript. I look forward to seeing this innovative microbial inhibition approach applied in future to help improve coal mine safety.

Thank you!

Have a great day!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have reviewed the manuscript fire-2706271 entitled "Experimental study on Microstructural Characterization of Retardation Capacity of Microbial Inhibitors to Lignite Spontaneous Combustion". In this paper, authors study the inhibition mechanisms of lignite spontaneous combustion using microbial-induced calcium deposition from both micro and macro perspectives. By reading your paper, engineers can better understand the role of microbial inhibitors in preventing lignite oxidation and the effectiveness of calcium carbonate deposition in reducing coal's oxidation properties. Personally, I am interested in this research direction. However, the paper needs improvements before acceptance for publication.

In general:

1.       The paper structure needs to be rearranged. The content of the Introduction section should be refined, focusing on the current research on the inhibition mechanisms of lignite spontaneous combustion rather than a broad overview.

2.       In the article, the experimental setup for the microbial-induced calcium deposition is described, but it would be beneficial to explore varying concentrations or conditions to understand its optimal performance.

3.       The Results section, especially the findings from SEM, pore size analysis, and FT-IR experiments, needs to be more concise and directly linked to the implications for lignite spontaneous combustion prevention.

4.       The content distribution in the paper is uneven. While there's a detailed discussion on the microbial-induced calcium deposition, the broader implications for mine fire prevention and how this method compares to traditional methods could be expanded upon.

Details:

1.       Figure 3 would be beneficial to provide more descriptive annotations or captions to explain what is being shown in each sub-figure (a, b, c, d).

2.       Figure 5, consider annotating the major peaks to help readers identify and understand their significance.

Table 1 might be helpful to provide more detailed explanations or annotations for each column in the table to help readers grasp the significance of the data.

Grammar problem:

1.         Page 2: " on the surface of coal " needs to be replaced with " on the surface of the coal ".

2.         Page 2: " from the perspective of inhibition mechanism " needs to be replaced with " from the perspective of the inhibition mechanism ".

3.         Page 2: " In view of " needs to be replaced with " Given ".

4.         Page 3: " study the changes of surface " needs to be replaced with " study the changes in surface ".

5.         Page 3: " the addition of calcium source " needs to be replaced with " the addition of a calcium source ".

6.         Page 5: " was used to " needs to be replaced with " were used to ".

7.         Page 8: " change trend " needs to be replaced with " change trend ".

8.         Page 8: " great changes " needs to be replaced with " greatly changed ".

9.         Page 12: " biological inhibited treatment " needs to be replaced with " biologically inhibited treatment ".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Now it could be accepted for publication. 

The English is ok.