Coal Fire Sublimates: Are We Missing Something?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper is innovative and well written. The following issues need to be addressed before publication:

1.Abstract: While the author presents the Abstract, answer the questions carefully: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Please make your abstract with more specific and quantitative results while it suits broader audiences. Despite some steps have been done following the above suggestion, the revised abstract is still necessary. Besides, pls be careful to use the word "scientifically", "systematically " etc.

2.Introduction: The current Introduction should be further improved. A good one includes at least four aspects: motivation/background, literature review, aim and contribution, and organization of the remains of the study. Avoiding to put massive bibliographies behind one sentence. Such as XXXXX [1-5], OR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; all references should be cited with detailed and specific descriptions DOI: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2022.125224

3. Literature Review has the chance to be further improved: it seems that the authors have made the retrospection. However, via the review, what issues should be addressed? What is the current specific knowledge gap? What implication can be referred?

4. As a key part of a paper, Discussion should show the readers at least two elements: "breadth" and "depth". "Breadth" reflects whether the analytical results can be explained via different approaches. "Depth" reflects whether the analytical results completely answer the questions raised in Introduction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

1.Abstract: While the author presents the Abstract, answer the questions carefully: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Please make your abstract with more specific and quantitative results while it suits broader audiences. Despite some steps have been done following the above suggestion, the revised abstract is still necessary.

Additional details added to the Abstract

Besides, pls be careful to use the word "scientifically", "systematically " etc.

The Word ‘Find’ feature did not locate these words in the text.

 

2.Introduction: The current Introduction should be further improved. A good one includes at least four aspects: motivation/background, literature review, aim and contribution, and organization of the remains of the study. Avoiding to put massive bibliographies behind one sentence. Such as XXXXX [1-5], OR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; all references should be cited with detailed and specific descriptions DOI: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2022.125224

We agree and our Introduction has motivation/background (first and second paragraphs), a literature review (third and fourth paragraphs), aim (last paragraph). The organization is apparent from the subsequent Section headings.

3. Literature Review has the chance to be further improved: it seems that the authors have made the retrospection. However, via the review, what issues should be addressed? What is the current specific knowledge gap? What implication can be referred?

We have added a paragraph to the Conclusion that should satisfy this comment.

 

4. As a key part of a paper, Discussion should show the readers at least two elements: "breadth" and "depth". "Breadth" reflects whether the analytical results can be explained via different approaches. "Depth" reflects whether the analytical results completely answer the questions raised in Introduction.

We agree and feel that our discussion adequately satisfies these requirements given the extreme difficulty of characterizing micro- and nano-sized particulares.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment

 

The article A Review of Coal Fire Sublimates: Are We Missing Something?

under review submitted to Journal “Sustainability”  by  Robert Barry Finkelman *, Henry R. Dodds, Naomi T. Nichols, Glenn Stracher to Special Issue: Nanomineral and Their Importance on the Earth and Human Health: A Real Impact   are  devoted to the global problems of the world - uncontrolled coal fires which is currently a serious problem in modern society.

These fires, ignite forest fires, become a source of windblown dust and siltation of streams, pollute surface water, ground water, and crops can cause destruction of the ecosystem not only the source of zone but another regions.

 

There are some questions:

 

1.         Please describe how identified the phases of components in Table 1? 

2.         It would be necessary to bring the coordinates of the monitoring points into the

            Line 159- Fig.1- Jharkhand

            Line 162-Fig.2- Leuripathra

3.         What types of equipment’s used in this research, please?

4.         Could you create one table for means of concentration of component, please?

5.         The paper does not compare the results obtained with the results of other authors,  

             obtained at least in the territory of the India.

6.         There is no analysis of the accuracy of the results and the confidence interval of the

             results obtained in the work.

7.         What are recommendations of authors for Sustainably for this case?

 f it is possible, please make attention to this remarks are eliminated, and the work can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

 

1. Please describe how identified the phases of components in Table 1? We added the following on page 4:

The phases were identified using a JEOL JSM-IT100  scanning electron microscope with an energy dispersive X-ray detector. The ‘Likely Mineral’ identification was based on similar composition to phases reported in other uncontrolled coal fire publications.

2. It would be necessary to bring the coordinates of the monitoring points into the

            Line 159- Fig.1- Jharkhand      OK added (near Jharia Town 23.7426° N, 86.4111° E)

 

            Line 162-Fig.2- Leuripathra    OK added (near Jharia Town 23.7426° N, 86.4111° E)

 

2. What types of equipment’s used in this research, please? OK- added

 

4. Could you create one table for means of concentration of component, please?

I wish that we could. The system that we used provided semi-quantitative data but the phases that we analyzed were so small that the electron beam penetrated the target phase and caused excitation of material beneath and around the target phase so we can only provide qualitative results.

 

5. The paper does not compare the results obtained with the results of other authors,

             obtained at least in the territory of the India.

1. We have added comments coal-fire condensates from India or the lack thereof.

 

6. There is no analysis of the accuracy of the results and the confidence interval of the

             results obtained in the work.  See response to question 4.

 

7. What are recommendations of authors for Sustainably for this case?
8. We have added some comments on this important issue.

It is evident that the health of the villagers living in proximity to the uncontrolled fires and the miners working in mines where the coal is burning is at risk from the release of noxious gases, toxic elements, and nanoparticles. The only solutions to this situation are to make a concerted effort to extinguish the fires and, if this is not feasible, relocate the villagers to a safer distance. We fully recognize that neither solution is ideal either economically or socially but allowing these situations to persist will likely lead to widespread, severe health problems.

 if it is possible, please make attention to this remarks are eliminated, and the work can be recommended for publication.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents the SEM/EDS results of a piece of the sublimates and condensates from an active coal fire. Overall, the research content is well organized and logically expressed. However, the experimental results couldn’t perfectly support the corresponding conclusions and there are some unclear points and mistakes contained in its description. Therefore, I suggest that it could be published in Sustainability after performing several revisions to improve the paper's quality.

1. The full name of the acronyms should be explained when they first appear in this manuscript, such as SEM, XRD, EDS, etc.

 

2. The atomic percentages of the EDS are necessary to determine the chemical formula of the composition, which should be provided. If there is too much data, the author should move them to the supporting information.

3. The XRD information is essential for the structural identification of the components. If the mixture is too complex, it is recommended to separate and purify the mixture first and then provide the XRD results in this manuscript.

4. The grain size distribution is very effective for the analysis of particle size. Therefore, I suggest to add the corresponding characterization in this manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are plenty of unexpected sections, misspellings, and illogical sentences in this manuscript. The author should carefully check and correct these mistakes.

Author Response

. The full name of the acronyms should be explained when they first appear in this manuscript, such as SEM, XRD, EDS, etc.    Done.

 

1. The atomic percentages of the EDS are necessary to determine the chemical formula of the composition, which should be provided. If there is too much data, the author should move them to the supporting information.

I wish that we could provide this information. The system that we used provided semi-quantitative data but the phases that we analyzed were so small that the electron beam penetrated the target phase and caused excitation of material beneath and around the target phase so we can only provide qualitative results.

2. The XRD information is essential for the structural identification of the components. If the mixture is too complex, it is recommended to separate and purify the mixture first and then provide the XRD results in this manuscript.

Agreed. However, the micro- and nano-particles are far too small and the mixtures are far too complex to allow for decipherable XRD analysis. A comment has been added.

4. The grain size distribution is very effective for the analysis of particle size. Therefore, I suggest to add the corresponding characterization in this manuscript.

Agreed. However the intimate, complex, intermixes of the mineral grains do not allow for particle size analysis other than to indicate the size of the particles in the SEM images.

 

peer-review-32467699.v1.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are plenty of unexpected sections, misspellings, and illogical sentences in this manuscript. The author should carefully check and correct these mistakes.

This is a surprising comment as our spell checker did not indicate a single misspelled word.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is of research on review on coal sublimates is interesting. However, the review paper misses a lot of information to qualify as a scientific study.  

1. Add an experimentation section and include how each sublimate is tested for their presence and in what amounts. Please mention how the particles from sublimates containing Flourine, bararite, cryptohalite and other particles were tested to ensure their presence. What were the conditions and what instruments were used to detect amounts? 

2. Mention the tools and improved instruments used to get accurate information for study of coal sublimates.

3. Please mention what gap does this paper fill in terms of knowledge that is not already known before. The novelty of the knowledge is not there and should be highlighted. 

4. Literature review is too brief for a review paper. Comprehensive study is not included on previous work and the data presented is very limited for the reader. The review covers a very limited aspect of the study. The sublimates have already been studied before. Mention those papers and their contribution and suggest how your study is better/or different. 

5. Review paper for paper structure: for example, line 119 and 120 are incomplete and also the sentence is too long. Do not use exclamation mark on line 170. Rechcek for other grammatical mistakes. 

6. More detail of how technological advances have influenced coal sublimates can be included.

7. Add more detail on what can be done to address the health hazards. What should be done for the future studies and what is the limitation of this study?

8. This paper is too general for a scientific paper. it merely discusses the importance of hazards of coal sublimates.  Details of how the experiments were done to find sublimates, what were the quantities in which they were found, any analysis done on the findings, comparison with previous work like mentioned below are missing.

{Dalmora, Adilson C., Claudete G. Ramos, Xavier Querol, Rubens M. Kautzmann, Marcos LS Oliveira, Silvio R. Taffarel, Teresa Moreno, and Luis FO Silva. "Nanoparticulate mineral matter from basalt dust wastes." Chemosphere 144 (2016): 2013-2017., Oliveira, Marcos LS, Kátia Da Boit, Ismael L. Schneider, Elba C. Teixeira, Tito J. Crissien Borrero, and Luis FO Silva. "Study of coal cleaning rejects by FIB and sample preparation for HR-TEM: Mineral surface chemistry and nanoparticle-aggregation control for health studies." Journal of Cleaner Production 188 (2018): 662-669.}

 

Kindly incorportae the following in the paper. Thank you. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be slightly improved. 

Author Response

The topic is of research on review on coal sublimates is interesting. However, the review paper misses a lot of information to qualify as a scientific study. 

 

1. Add an experimentation section and include how each sublimate is tested for their presence and in what amounts. Please mention how the particles from sublimates containing Flourine, bararite, cryptohalite and other particles were tested to ensure their presence. What were the conditions and what instruments were used to detect amounts?

Comments on the SEM/EDX system used have been added.

2. Mention the tools and improved instruments used to get accurate information for study of coal sublimates.

See above response.

3. Please mention what gap does this paper fill in terms of knowledge that is not already known before. The novelty of the knowledge is not there and should be highlighted.
4. Several comments have been added.
5. Literature review is too brief for a review paper. Comprehensive study is not included on previous work and the data presented is very limited for the reader. The review covers a very limited aspect of the study. The sublimates have already been studied before. Mention those papers and their contribution and suggest how your study is better/or different.

This is a valid observation. The reason is that there has been very few efforts to characterize the micr0-and nano-phases produced by uncontrolled coal fires as noted ……. And there are no comprehensive discussions of coal-fire minerals in India. A note to this effect has been added to the text.

5. Review paper for paper structure: for example, line 119 and 120 are incomplete and also the sentence is too long. Do not use exclamation mark on line 170. Rechcek for other grammatical mistakes.

Check – I think this comment refers to the sentence on page 4 beginning with Teleanu. Thoughts?

 

6. More detail of how technological advances have influenced coal sublimates can be included.

It is not clear what the reviewer is asking. There have been no technical advances influencing coal sublimates. They are a natural phenomenon of uncontrolled coal fires and are not influences by technical advances.

7. Add more detail on what can be done to address the health hazards. What should be done for the future studies and what is the limitation of this study?

This comment has been addressed.

It is evident that the health of the villagers living in proximity to the uncontrolled fires and the miners working in mines where the coal is burning is at risk from the release of noxious gases, toxic elements, and nanoparticles. The only solutions to this situation are to make a concerted effort to extinguish the fires and, if this is not feasible, relocate the villagers to a safer distance. We fully recognize that neither solution is ideal either economically or socially but allowing these situations to persist will likely lead to widespread, severe health problems.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Author Response

Thank you for your review and advice.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has given a detailed response to the original comments and made corrections in the article. Reasonable explanations are also given for the parts of the experiment that cannot be realized. To sum up, I agree to publish it in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and advice.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The points pointed by reviewer have been addressed. It is ok to publish.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Ok. Slight format issues are there though.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and advice.