Electrochemistry of Sulfides: Process and Environmental Aspects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to the Authors
The authors reviewed that the chemical behavior of important sulfide minerals. The point of view is very interesting. However, I find the chapters confusing and unorganized. It would be necessary to explain them more clearly and in a more orderly manner in the introduction. In addition, chemical reactions and the redox potentials are embedded in the text, and it would be easier to read if they were put in a table. Furthermore, it would be better to have a diagram of the overall overview and a summary as a figure regarding the important results. At this stage, the review is not suitable for publication because it is difficult for readers to understand.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This review titled in “Electrochemistry of sulfides: process and environmental aspects” presents the electrochemical properties of some of the most common industrial sulfides, and introduces a study of the surface redox transformations of minerals, galvanic effect, cathodic oxygen reduction reaction on the surface of sulfides. This review is meaningful. Before considering this review for publication, the authors should consider the following points in any revision as follows:
1. In the second chapter, the subsections will be clearer, and subheadings should be added.
2. On Lines 67-79 and 99-101, there are the exact same statements as “the authors note that...”. Please check for accuracy and necessity.
3. There is a problem with the formatting of subscripts and subscripts in chemical formulas, such as “HSO4-” on Line 75.
4. There is a problem with the expression of the cited literature, and “in [number]” should not be used, such as in [32] on Line 103.
5. The last two paragraphs of Chapter 3 are wrong in font.
6. In the content of the review of sulfides, the overall connection is not strong. The content is composed of summaries of each literature, and the author's insights are lacking.
7. Documents on Lines 64, 70, 319 need to be reinserted.
8. The expression in [21-27, etc.] is problematic, and “etc.” should be removed. The same expression below should be modified.
9. On Lines 439-446, the font is inconsistent with the text.
10. Abbreviations should be marked with their full names when they appear at the first time, such as AMD, Eh.
11. On Page 2 Line 64 and Page 7 Line 319, what is [Error! Bookmark not defined.] mean?
12. Does a review need some figures?
13. The authors should check the review carefully to avoid the basic mistakes. For example, “FTIR spectra of the pyrite electrode/electrolyte...” on Lines 82-84; in “mineral – enargite”, there is no space between – and word; in “NH3 +NH4+”, there is an extra space; on Page 14 Line 672, “Of practical interest is...”.
14. Many recent publications related to sulfides have been published, such as Chinese Journal of Applied Chemistry, 2022, 39(5): 723-735, Acta Physico-Chimica Sinica, 2022, 38 (2): 2101001, Advanced Fiber Materials, 2020, 2: 314-337, et al. In order to help readers better understand the important of this work, these references should be cited, correspondingly.
I will be happy to recommend for publication a revised version of the review in Sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This work relatively comprehensively reviewed the electrochemistry behaviors of various sulfides, as well as involved electrochemical reactions such as oxygen reduction, galvanic interactions, and sulfide oxidation during different sulfide-containing industrial processes. This review can be accepted after addressing the following issues.
1. Could the authors specifically summarize how the electrolyte (pH and content) and applied potential influence the phase and composition stability of the sulfide minerals during electrochemistry?
2. How does the oxygen reduction influence the phase of sulfide minerals? Are they (especially their surface composition) still stable during electrochemical oxygen reduction process?
3. Actually, the utilization of operando/in-situ techniques, e.g., X-ray absorption and Raman spectroscopy, can more accurately track the phase, composition, local atomic coordination of sulfides during electrochemistry process, which is recommended to be included in this review.
4. More electrochemical behavior for sulfides should be enriched (e.g., the phase reconstruction during electrochemical process, and the reference (https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202108432) maybe helpful for authors to clarify this pint. Moreover, the language and logic description for this review should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author answered all the questions and revised it. This manuscript could be published in this journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your careful review of our manuscript and for your valuable comments.
Kind regards, authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this revised manuscript, the authors still need to consider the following comments.
1. The usage of "-" and "–" should be kept uniform, such as "–0.5 to +0.7 V", "-0.2 V", "6.8-11", and "10–50 s".
2. On line 375, "PbS = xPb2+ + Pb1xS + 2e-", both sides of the equation are not equal.
3. "2.1. " in the subsection title should be revised to "2.1".
After the authors address above issues, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #2Round#2 Comments
In this revised manuscript, the authors still need to consider the following comments.
- The usage of "-" and "–" should be kept uniform, such as "–0.5 to +0.7 V", "-0.2 V", "6.8-11", and "10–50 s".
Corrected.
- On line 375, "PbS = xPb2+ + Pb1xS + 2e-", both sides of the equation are not equal.
Corrected into "PbS ® xPb2+ + Pb1xS + 2e-"
- "2.1. " in the subsection title should be revised to "2.1".
Corrected.
Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you for your work!
Kind regards, authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my concerns, the manuscript can be accpeted now.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your careful review of our manuscript and for your valuable comments.
Kind regards, authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
