Application of Cement Paste in Mining Works, Environmental Protection, and the Sustainable Development Goals in the Mining Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

The article "Application of cement paste in mining works, environmental protection and sustainable development goals in the mining industry" by Lidija Đurđevac Ignjatović, Vesna Krstić, Vlastimir Radonjanin, Violeta Jovanović, Mirjana Malešev, Dragan Ignjatović and Vanja Đurđevac is submitted for review.

This article reveals a fairly relevant topic: sustainable development in the mining industry through the prism of environmental protection. The authors see one of the ways to reduce the environmental load: the use of tailings for the preparation of cement paste, as an option for recycling and reducing waste during mining. However, with a sufficiently high relevance of the study and a good study of the material, there are a number of general comments that are addressed to the quality of the manuscript and a list detailed issues that worsen the perception of the material under study.

1) From my point of view, the Authors composed a very sparse and limited list of references. The authors in their “33 reference list” have 5 self-citations, 3 papers published in Serbian, and they very widely refer to the work of scientists from China (14 articles). As far as I could check, most of the references (including self-citations and papers in Serbian) are quite recent and relevant. In fact, Chinese scientists widely use tailings in closed-loop production and referring to their works seem to be absolutely relevant. I only wonder if Authors might provide geographically wider “State of the Art report” based on wider range of diverse European, Russian, American and African references (if available).

The use of technogenic waste in the production of filling material (and/or its use as potential source of minerals) is addressed in recent works of scientists many countries: Russia: V.I. Golik; E.A. Ermolovich; Ch.B. Kongar-Syuryun, E. Resniova Poland: J. Rybak; A. Ubysz; T. Kowalik; K. Szamałek, Slovakia: M. Dusa, Serbia: I. Ristović, Saudi Arabia: M. Hefni. This list goes on. In my opinion: the authors need to supplement the review with studies by scientists from other countries, which will expand the geography of citations and increase interest in this work of scientists from all over the world. Last but not least – wider reference list increases future citing potential of the study, that is a profit for both: Authors and Editorial Office. As I am lately involved in some publication projects, I made a short list of exemplary references attached to my review. None of them was authored by me and I have no personal gain from my suggestions.

2) In paragraph 1 (lines 34 - 45) the authors make a lot of strong statements, but they do not provide proof of their words. Please provide relevant references and/or develop/comment

3) in the sentence (lines 46-47), the authors write about the rather large-scale impact of the mining industry on the environment and its impact on sustainable development. 7 references were made to one offer at once. From my point of view, it is necessary to differentiate these factors, substantiating each of them with a specific reference. This will significantly improve the quality of the material and increase relevance. Usually, I advise to introduce every cited paper individually to show its importance for the current study. This note is advisory in nature. If the authors believe that this is a serious reload of the manuscript and will distract readers from the main goal, then making changes is not necessary.

4) The same applies to lines 52-53.

5) From my point of view, in lines 70-71 in the context of this study, the authors make an erroneous statement, designating tailings as a resource. Yes indeed, enrichment tailings are a technogenic resource, but only if they are involved in subsequent processing. In the present study, the authors use tailings as an inert filler in backfill composite. Consequently, they use the tails as a secondary (repeated product). It is just a matter of terminology. Please comment.

6) From my point of view, the use of enrichment tailings as an inert aggregate without reprocessing is an atavism. From my point of view, it is necessary to point to innovative technologies that reduce the amount of a valuable component in industrial waste to zero. (V.I. Golik; J. Rybak; Ch. Kongar-Syuryun and others). This note is advisory in nature as well.

7) There are a lot of harmful components in the enrichment tailings. The design of tailings prevents the rapid penetration of harmful components into the environment. However, when these harmful components enter the bowels, they become quite mobile. Mobility is facilitated by a system of cracks and groundwater. The authors did not indicate what measures are possible to reduce the mobility of harmful components.

8) In section 2.1. The authors did not specify the enrichment tailings used in the materials. The concept of "waste material obtained by processing copper ore" has a very broad concept. Copper ores are never monocomponent, but polymetallic. Such ores contain a lot of harmful components in their composition, which have a negative effect on the mass created after solidification. These influences include: strong heating; expansion or even decrease in strength characteristics after curing. Sulfides have a softening effect on the formed array. For better perception by readers and the possibility of repeating the experiment, it is necessary to present the chemical and material composition of the tailings used.
9) 9.1. There is no information on the method of preparation of the samples, namely: how the mixing took place (order, what was poured after), the equipment on which the mixing took place and the speed of mixing. In addition, there are components in the composition, the content of which is unequal, in connection with this I have a question: how was their uniform distribution achieved in the entire mass of the composite.

9.2. there is no information under what conditions the samples were stored until the moment of their loading. To what extent do these storage conditions correspond to underground ones. There is no reference to the method of preparation and testing or similar works, where there is a description of this method, taking into account international experience.

9.3. the authors did not specify the equipment. which was used in the study of the physical and mechanical properties of the samples. Time and speed of loading.

9.4. How was convergence achieved? Otherwise, other researchers do not have the opportunity to repeat this experiment.

10) Lines 190-198 refer to the description of the material used. From my point of view, this information should be included in section 2.1.

Tables 1 and 2 and figures 1-3 should be included in the same section.

Please improve the quality (resolution) of Figures 2,3,4,5 if possible.

Finally, I really think, that the manuscript under consideration is of great scientific interest, reveals an urgent problem and is a completed research work. The article can be published after making changes in accordance with the comments.

Sincerely,

 

Please check the references listed below, it is not mandatory for your study but might be helpful.

1. Niemiec, D.; Duraj, M.; Cheng, X.; Marschalko, M.; Kubac, J. Selected black-coal mine waste dumps in the Ostrava Karvina region: An analysis of their potential use. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/95/4/042061
2. Rybak, J.; Gorbatyuk, S.M.; Kongar-Syuryun, C.; Khayrutdinov, A.M.; Tyulyaeva, Y.; Makarov, P.S. Utilization of Mineral Waste: A Method for Expanding the Mineral Resource Base of a Mining and Smelting Company. Metallurgist 2021, 64, 851–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11015-021-01065-5
3. Han, G.; Zhang, J.; Sun, H.; Shen, D.; Wu, Z.; An, X.; Meye, S.M.; Huang, Y. Application of Iron Ore Tailings and Phosphogypsum to Create Artificial Rockfills Used in Rock-Filled Concrete. Buildings 2022, 12, 555. https://doi.org/3390/buildings12050555
4. Kongar-Syuryun, C., Ubysz, A., Faradzhov, V. Models and algorithms of choice of development technology of deposits when selecting the composition of the backfilling mixture. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 684(1), https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/684/1/012008
5. Khairutdinov, A., Ubysz, A., Adigamov, A. The concept of geotechnology with a backfill is the path of integrated development of the subsoil. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 684(1), 012007, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/684/1/012007
6. Hefni, M.; Ahmed, H.A.M.; Omar, E.S.; Ali, M.A. The potential re-use of Saudi mine tailings in mine backfill: A path towards sustainable mining in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116204
7. Zglinicki, K.; Szamałek, K.; Wołkowicz, S. Critical Minerals from Post-Processing Tailing. A Case Study from Bangka Island, Indonesia. Minerals 2021, 11, 352. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11040352
8. Zglinicki, K.; Małek, R.; Szamałek, K.; Wołkowicz, S. Mining Waste as a Potential Additional Source of HREE and U for the European Green Deal: A Case Study of Bangka Island (Indonesia). Minerals 2022, 12, 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12010044
9. Ponomarenko, T.; Nevskaya, M.; Jonek-Kowalska, I. Mineral Resource Depletion Assessment: Alternatives. Problems. Results. Sustainability 2021, 13, 862. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020862
10. Resniova, E.; Ponomarenko, T. Sustainable Development of the Energy Sector in a Country Deficient in Mineral Resources: The Case of the Republic of Moldova. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063261
11. Šajn, R.; Ristović, I.; Čeplak, B. Mining and Metallurgical Waste as Potential Secondary Sources of Metals—A Case Study for the West Balkan Region. Minerals 2022, 12, 547. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050547

Author Response

Dear Rewiever#1,

Thank you for your valuable comments and help to correct this Manuscript and give it the best possible form for possible publication. All your comments have been carefully considered and appreciated. The answer to each point of your comment is visible in the Manuscript so you can follow each comment.

Best Regard,

Lidija Ignjatović & Vesna Krstić

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

OVERALL COMMENTS:

The paper presented the possible re-use of cemented paste backfill (CPB) made from flotation tailings to derive economic and environmental benefits. The authors did an extensive literature review.  The tests and the results presented in this paper can be used as reference of mining industry on the re-use of their waste materials to protect the environment.

The reviewer recommends the following changes on the manuscript to warrant its publication:

MANDATORY CHANGES:

1.  Indicate the required criteria of filtration coefficient for a cement paste tailing to be considered as effective in protecting the groundwater.

2.  The conclusions in this paper seem to be contradictory in some aspects of the results. For example, the results showed that the flotation tailings have high filtration coefficient.  Traces of heavy metals were found after the passage of groundwater through the cement paste.  This can result to contamination of groundwater, which is contradictory to the conclusion of this paper, that is, the CPBs can be safely used in groundwater protection. Clarify and address this inconsistency in the findings.

3.  Always write out the first in-text reference to an acronym, followed by the acronym itself written in capital letters and enclosed by parentheses. The acronym in the Abstract (line 28) should be spelled out.

4.  Some sentences in the manuscript need to be improved. Some number format needs to be corrected [use of dot (.) to indicate decimal point instead of comma (,)].

5.  Coefficient of Curvature should be designated as Cc.

The detailed corrections and comments made by the reviewer are reflected in the manuscript using sticky notes.

SUGGESTED CHANGES:

 Provide a clear copy of Figure 5.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviwewr#2,

Thank you very much for your comments. We have carefully made all the corrections to which you have commented and improved the quality of work. We have answered every point of your discussion, and you can see them all in the comments on the right side of the Manuscript, you can follow them throughout the Manuscript.

Sincerely Yours,

Lidija Ignjatović & Vesna Krstić

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very interesting, although in my opinion it is necessary to comment in depth on the trials.

There are many formatting errors and most of the images are not of sufficient quality for an article.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#3,

Thank you very much for the well-intentioned comments. We have tried to respond to each of your comments and give the best possible answer, to improve the quality of work. You can follow the answer to each of your comments in the comments throughout the manuscript and notice.

Sincerely,

Lidija Đurđevac & Vesna Krstić

Reviewer 4 Report

English must be improved. Problems with language start from the Abstract's last sentence and then are all over the text.

The introduction, on the one hand,  does not contain a sufficient number of references. On the other hand, the authors like to put a lot of references together (up to 7). I would suggest spreading references through the paragraph that helps the reader to find the needed one.

The experimental part is completely unreproducible. The authors gave only general information about the equipment they used, however, no parameters of an experimental procedure or data acquisition were provided.

All the figures have poor quality and can't be published. Figures 1 and 3 are unnecessary. Figure 3 can be just cited as it is a reprint. If the authors do really want to include it in the paper it is better to do using Supplementary information (SI).

All other figures must be reported using a graphics editor. Providing raw data screenshotted or saved directly from the instrument is inappropriate (could be included in SI).

What is the asterisk * meaning in Table 3? What are the limits of used analysis methods? Standard deviations must be provided. ICP-AES and AAS determine ions' content. What does represent in Table 3?

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#4,

Thank you very much for the well-intentioned comments. We have tried to respond to each of your comments and give the best possible answer, to improve the quality of work. You can follow the answer to each of your comments in the comments throughout the manuscript and notice.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

After revision the article "Application of cement paste in mining works, environmental protection and sustainable development goals in the mining industry" by Lidija Đurđevac Ignjatović, Vesna Krstić, Vlastimir Radonjanin, Violeta Jovanović, Mirjana Malešev, Dragan Ignjatović and Vanja Đurđevac is submitted for re-review.

As I noted earlier, the article presented reveals a very relevant topic: the sustainable development of the mining industry through the prism of environmental protection. The authors considered one of the ways to reduce the burden on the environment. The use of mining waste for the preparation of cement paste seems to be an excellent option for reuse and reduction of waste from mineral extraction.

This manuscript brought a fairly high cognitive potential to me as a researcher. As a reviewer, I am very pleased that all my comments were taken into account by the authors. This greatly improved the manuscript. The revised manuscript allows the authors to present their research more accurately, which significantly increases the interest of readers in this work.

From my point of view, the research presented in the article "Application of cement paste in mining works, environmental protection and sustainable development goals in the mining industry" by Lidija Đurđevac Ignjatović, Vesna Krstić, Vlastimir Radonjanin, Violeta Jovanović, Mirjana Malešev, Dragan Ignjatović and Vanja Đurđevac will be interesting and in demand in the scientific community, and the article itself is worthy of publication in the open press.

 

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#1,

According to your comments:

"After revision the article "Application of cement paste in mining works, environmental protection and sustainable development goals in the mining industry" by Lidija Đurđevac Ignjatović, Vesna Krstić, Vlastimir Radonjanin, Violeta Jovanović, Mirjana Malešev, Dragan Ignjatović and Vanja Đurđevac is submitted for re-review.

As I noted earlier, the article presented reveals a very relevant topic: the sustainable development of the mining industry through the prism of environmental protection. The authors considered one of the ways to reduce the burden on the environment. The use of mining waste for the preparation of cement paste seems to be an excellent option for reuse and reduction of waste from mineral extraction.

This manuscript brought a fairly high cognitive potential to me as a researcher. As a reviewer, I am very pleased that all my comments were taken into account by the authors. This greatly improved the manuscript. The revised manuscript allows the authors to present their research more accurately, which significantly increases the interest of readers in this work.

From my point of view, the research presented in the article "Application of cement paste in mining works, environmental protection and sustainable development goals in the mining industry" by Lidija Đurđevac Ignjatović, Vesna Krstić, Vlastimir Radonjanin, Violeta Jovanović, Mirjana Malešev, Dragan Ignjatović and Vanja Đurđevac will be interesting and in demand in the scientific community, and the article itself is worthy of publication in the open press."

Thank you very much for such encouraging comments. Your selfless suggestions really helped to come up with a paper that has taken a form that can be published in such a prestigious magazine. Given that we have interesting ideas for future research, we would be pleased to collaborate on one of the joint projects. What do you think about this proposal?

Best Regard,

 

Authors

 

Reviewer 3 Report

After reviewing and seeing the modifications made, there are still many deficiencies in the format and quality of the images. I recommend downloading the template provided by the mdpi platform and following the instructions.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#3,

According to your comments:

"After reviewing and seeing the modifications made, there are still many deficiencies in the format and quality of the images. I recommend downloading the template provided by the mdpi platform and following the instructions."

All images were re-created and formatted with a resolution of 300 dpi. They are deployed in the Manuscript. They were also sent to the editor in a special folder in jpg format. We hope that the images are now appropriate and of much better quality.

 

Best Regard,

 

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

My comments are mostly the same:

 

1. Poor English. The authors tried to improve it but they made even more mistakes "The paste itself can be used use as an artificial barrier ... The basic materials that make up makeup CPB 1..." just an example from the very beginning. Also, a huge number of misspellings in the text.
2. Figures must be replotted. Especially, figure 1 and Figure 3. In figure 3 all peaks must be labeled. In the current representation, the reader will not understand it.
3. Figures 4, 5, and 6 are unnecessary in the text body. If the authors want to include them they should use Supplementary Information. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#4,

 

According to your comments:

1. Poor English. The authors tried to improve it but they made even more mistakes "The paste itself can be used use as an artificial barrier ... The basic materials that make up makeup CPB 1..." just an example from the very beginning. Also, a huge number of misspellings in the text.

In order English edited, the paper was sent to professional translators of the MDPI service. We hope that the edited were made correctly.

2. Figures must be replotted. Especially, figure 1 and Figure 3. In figure 3 all peaks must be labeled. In the current representation, the reader will not understand it.

Figures 1 and 3 have been redone according to your recommendation and placed in the Manuscript in the appropriate places. We hope that we have now managed to improve the image quality.

3. Figures 4, 5, and 6 are unnecessary in the text body. If the authors want to include them they should use Supplementary Information. 

Figures 4, 5 and 6 are deleted from the paper.

 

We took the opportunity to add LoQ - Limit of quantification for each method in Table 4, in response to your request during the first revision.

 

Best Regard,

 

Authors

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.