A Novel Flux That Determines the Physico-Chemical Properties of Calcined Diatomite in Its Industrial Use as a Filler and Filter Aid: Thenardite (Na₂SO₄)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

the subject of your work is significant. However the presentation of the results need a thorough rewriting..

 

You may see the sticky notes on your text

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very well written paper.

Just minor comments: check Line 59 (formula)

Line 359: ilmenite - probably you mean illite (ilmenite is not a clay). Check the indexes in formulas in this line,

Author Response

Reviewer 2: Just minor comments: check Line 59 (formula)

Response: “Fluxes such as Na₂CO₃ (soda ash), NaCl (halite), NaOH (caustic soda), KCl (Sylvite),………..”

Reviewer 2: Line 359: ilmenite - probably you mean illite (ilmenite is not a clay). Check the indexes in formulas in this line,

Response: We wanted to write illite, we wrote ilmenite by mistake.

“Although the presence of high Fe₂O₃, Al₂O₃ content and clay minerals (e.g. illite) in Sarayköy (Denizli-Turkey) diatomite…….”

Reviewer 3 Report

This study presents the results of the first use of tenardite as a flux in the calcination of diatomite. It is shown that the data obtained show that the tenardite is more effective for improving the properties of diatomite than the traditionally used soda ash, in improving the whiteness and filtrate clarity. At the same time, the authors correctly note that diatomite from various deposits differ from each other both in geochemical and mineralogical properties. Therefore, the authors rightly recommend using the results of a comprehensive study of the composition and properties of diatomite before choosing a calcination scheme. So, the paper adds valuable new information and can recommend for publication in Crystals but with some corrections which relate to the Figures, their quality should be improved. In addition, the text should be carefully checked by a technical editor and proofreader (see below).

Comments

Lines 3,13,73,77, and etc. thenardite mineral = thenardite.

Line 31.  Schrader (1974) = [3].

Line 60. Sylvite = sylvite.

Lines 399-472.  ; = ., pages, and etc. References should be corrected.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 3

Reviewer 3: Lines 3,13,73,77, and etc. thenardite mineral = thenardite.

Response: The term "thenardite mineral" has been replaced by "thenardite" throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 3: Line 31.  Schrader (1974) = [3].

Response: Various diatom shapes were well illustrated by [3].

Reviewer 3: Line 60. Sylvite = sylvite.

Response: “Fluxes such as Na₂CO₃ (soda ash), NaCl (halite), NaOH (caustic soda), KCl (sylvite), KOH (caustic potash),………”

Reviewer 3: Lines 399-472.  ; = ., pages, and etc. References should be corrected.

Response: pages added and ; converted to .

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

 

the revised version of your paper stands in good shape. I detected some simple grammar mistakes, you may correct easilly:

Pages 136 and 359 analyses instead of analyzes

Page 393 SiO2

In Table 1, you have to add the total % at the end

Good luck

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:Pages 136 and 359 analyses instead of analyzes

Response: "analyzes" words were changed as "analyses"

Reviewer 1:  Page 393 SiO2

Response: "2" was written as subscript. SiO₂

_{Reviewer 1: In Table 1, you have to add the total % at the end}

_{Response: We added total% at the ende of tha table.}