Carbon Emission Prediction Model for the Underground Mining Stage of Metal Mines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Technical comments
1. Abstract - the approach/ methodology and model developed for the analysis should be highlighted in the abstract.
2. Literature - the literature review is very weak and general in nature. It should be expanded for 1) parameters/ factors considered by the researchers and their findings; 2) various modeling techniques used and their effectiveness; 3) the state-of-the-art analysis of the site under consideration; 4) limitations of the present work.
3. Literature - the critical things such the parameter selection, modeling, analysis advantages, and limitations should be summarized in tabular form to get a clear idea.
4. Literature - The limitations of the existing work should be linked with the research gap and the problem statement.
5. Section 2 - different methods/ models are discussed, however, the comparative study is missing. It should be included.
6. Section 2 - the contribution is not visible in this section. It is required to demonstrate the same along with its necessity with the present work.
7. Section 3 - a description of the site under consideration should be discussed.
8. Section 3 - Tables 4 and 5 - the specifications of the fan and compressor should be elaborated. Similar modifications can be done at appropriate places.
9. Section 3 - Mathematical model development is missing. It seems that the discussion is very general in nature.
10. Conclusion section presents only observations. it should be expanded for their critical conclusion and interpretations
Overall comments
11. A proper methodology should be proposed along with its flowchart. A separate section should be included.
12. It is very essential to improve the flow of the paper (between section to section; subsection to subsection; and paragraph to paragraph)
13. All the tables should be critically discussed in detail to get more insights into observations, interpretations, and conclusions.
General comments
1. The manuscript should be revised for its English writing and typos.
2. A separate list of acronyms and notations should be prepared.
3. All figures and tables should be cited in the text appropriately.
4. It is recommended to use UNITS for different measurements as per the guidelines of the journal and widely used.
Author Response
Thank you for your meaningful comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This topic is interesting but there are several shortcomings in the paper. After, major revision it could be published:
-Please improve the literature review also you should mention about EU Green Deal with IPCC. Please give details related to mining processes and minimization aims on GHG emissions in Green Deal Agreement.
*European (EU) Commission, European Green Deal 2018 A clean planet for all (COM (2018) 773) . * (EU) Commission, European Green Deal 2021 Fit for 55 Package: The EU's Fit for 55 Package – Key Takeaways From Bernstein Renewables, Chemical, Airlines & Energy Teams . *Journal of Water and Climate Change (2022) 13 (8): 3100–3118. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.146 - Please give the detail related to recommended model validation.- The argument and the scope of the study should be defined clearly.
- A limitation related to your work has been defined. Why did you focus on this processes and key parameters?
- Please give more detail and results about data interpretation.
-Please correct the language of the paper and proofread by a native speaker.
It should be proofread by a native speaker.
Author Response
Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper titled "Carbon Emission Prediction Model for the Underground Mining Stage of Metal Mines" addresses an important environmental concern in the mining industry. The proposed prediction model has the potential to significantly contribute to mitigating carbon emissions and improving sustainability in metal mining operations. However, the manuscript requires revisions before it can be considered for publication:
1. The authors should provide a detailed explanation of the input parameters used in the prediction model.
2. Conduct a sensitivity analysis to identify the most influential input parameters on the model's predictions.
3. The paper lacks clarity in explaining the specific methodologies used to develop the prediction model. The authors should elaborate on the modeling techniques and algorithms applied, providing sufficient detail to facilitate replication and understanding by readers.
4. Include a comprehensive validation process for the prediction model. Cross-validation on different mining sites should be conducted to assess the model's robustness and generalizability.
5. Carbon emission prediction models inherently involve uncertainties. The authors should discuss the sources of uncertainty in their model and propose strategies to address or mitigate these uncertainties in real-world applications.
6. To assess the effectiveness of the proposed model, a comparative analysis with existing carbon emission prediction models, if available, should be included.
7. The authors should provide a thorough discussion of the limitations of the proposed model.
8. The authors should discuss the potential implications of the prediction model for the mining industry. What are the possible benefits for mining companies and the environment if this model is adopted on a wider scale?
9. The authors need to elaborate on the data collection process, including the methods used to acquire the necessary data.
Author Response
Thank you for your helpful comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The review comments are addressed satisfactorily.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank for the authors for their corrections. This manuscript could be published in this form.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have completed the evaluation of the revised manuscript titled " Carbon Emission Prediction Model for the Underground Mining Stage of Metal Mines” I am pleased to announce that the authors have diligently addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers. The revised version of the manuscript now presents a well-written narrative, a logical structure, and notable contributions to the field.
After a thorough and careful assessment, I am confident that this manuscript fully meets the standards set by the journal's requirements. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to highly recommend it for publication in " Sustainability." I firmly believe that this research will be of significant interest to our readers and will make a valuable contribution to the scientific community.
