Research on the Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Dust in Open Pit Coal Mine Crushing Stations and Closed Dust Reduction Methods
, Wei Zhou 1,*, Baowei Zhang 2, Jingfu Niu 2, Zhiming Wang 1, Lijie Liu 2, Zexuan Yang 1, Kun Xu 2, Wenqi Lu 2 and Lixia Zhu 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for the complex work on the study.
Specific comments are listed in the Attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This subject addressed is within the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript in the present version contains several problems. Appropriate revisions should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
1. It is mentioned that XRD and XRF are used. What are the advantages of adopting these particular methods over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.
2. For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
3. There is a serious concern regarding the novelty of this work. What new has been proposed?
4. Abstract needs to modify and to be revised to be quantitative. You can absorb readers' consideration by having some numerical results in this section.
5. There are some occasional grammatical problems within the text. It may need the attention of someone fluent in English language to enhance the readability.
6. The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.
7. In conclusion section, limitations and recommendations of this research should be highlighted.
8. The authors have to add the state-of-the art references in the manuscripts.
9. It is mentioned that Harwusu open pit mine is located in Ordos is adopted as the case study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this case study over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
There are some occasional grammatical problems within the text. It may need the attention of someone fluent in English language to enhance the readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present a study to investigate physical and chemical characteristics of dust in open pit coal mine using the high-speed cameras, installed dust concentration detectors, and numerical simulation. The study is interesting, but there were some flaws presented in the study. The detailed comments are made below:
1. Please add scale, legend, and north direction in Figure 1, and this figure should be more informative.
2. Table 2: How did the authors obtain these parameters, and please give more details about getting these parameters.
3. Figure 3: this figure should be improved.
4. How did the authors detect the dusts from the images？ such as the Figure 4.
5. Figure 6: the fonts of numbers and words in Figure 6 are so small so that it is very difficulty to recognize them.
6. In the Introduction, please consider citing the following references in this paper,
Fardin, N., Feng, Q., & Stephansson, O. (2004). Application of a new in situ 3D laser scanner to study the scale effect on the rock joint surface roughness. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(2), 329-335.
Ge, Y., Cao, B., & Tang, H. (2022). Rock discontinuities identification from 3d point clouds using artificial neural network. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 55(3), 1705-1720.
Xie, X., Liu, S., Wang, Y., Xu, Y., Cao, X., & Zhang, C. (2022). Analysis of mechanical property of floor rocks at grout-reinforced working face based on ultrasonic detection: a case study in China. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15(18), 1493.
Wang, J., Xu, H., & Zou, J. (2022). Fine detection technology of rock mass structure based on borehole acousto-optic combined measurement. Measurement, 187, 110259.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The writing is well tailored, and the explanations are often reasonable. However, sometimes, at some points, the submitted research leaves something to be desired. Nevertheless, the presented manuscript could be recommended for the publication after a minor revision and amendments following these next comments:
1. In abstract, author should avoid the use of very long sentences and abbreviations phrases.
2. The contents of Introduction are too long and they need to be shortened.
3. The main objectives and novelty aspects in this study should be highlighted clearly within the introduction section.
4. References should be revised to ensure that volume, and start-ending pages are provided, whenever possible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
My concerns have been addressed by the authors.
