In-Situ Leaching Mining Technique for Deep Bauxite Extraction and the Countermeasures for Water Pollution Prevention: An Example in the Ordos Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The article seems appropriate. It is clear and concise and well structured. The originality and novelty is not too significant but it is understood that it contributes to knowledge

Author Response

Revisions and improvements to the details of the paper has been made.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript «Conception of In-situ Leaching Mining of Deep Bauxite in Ordos Basin and Countermeasures of Water Pollution Prevention and Control» by Zhizhong Li, Yi Zhang, Tengyue Luo, Peng Xia, Huayi Mu, Pingping Sun f, Xin Wang a, Jianhua Wang was submitted for peer review.

 

I read the submitted manuscript with great interest. The authors address a relevant topic within the global economic and industrial framework, which is assessment of raw materials recoverability by underground leaching method considering evaluation environmental safety of this technology. 

Manuscript's title does not quite complete correctly describes the chosen research topic. 

Overall, the manuscript does not provide anything relevant to the current scientific knowledge.

A resubmission with complete characterization and studies is necessary. Major revision might be sufficient if these tests have been performed. Otherwise, the paper should be considered as rejected in the present form.

The manuscript has significant flaws that need to be corrected. Correction of the shortcomings listed below must be done to improve the quality of the manuscript, enhance the ease of perception of the presented material and increase the interest of a readers.

 

1.) From my point of view, this number of keywords is very few. In addition, keywords should be more direct and related to the content of the manuscript. Keywords enable the reader to quickly search for the necessary material and enable the author to popularize their research and increase interest and citations. But if this number of keywords satisfies the requirement of the journal, this comment is advisory.

2.) The abstract is not quite formed correctly. It is very blurry and framed incorrectly. It seems that the authors have taken certain phrases from the text and thus formed the abstract. The abstract should clearly indicate the purpose of the study, its importance for society (i.e. to characterize the problem), identify the methods and materials of the study, and the conclusions should be clearly and briefly formulated. There is no "starting point" in the abstract, that is, information about previous studies (one sentence is enough). From my point of view, in the abstract, such information begins with the statement: "Previously conducted studies have established that ...".

2.1) It is desirable to avoid narrative text in the abstract.

2.2) Try to use words and phrases: an analysis has been carried out; studied; developed; proposed; established and so on. It is advisable to start sentences in the abstract with these words and phrases.

2.3) At the end of the abstract, it is necessary to indicate the final result obtained by the authors, for example: A model has been developed that allows ...; A dependence has been established which is...; A pattern has been revealed...; An efficient system (technology) has been proposed, and so on.

The abstract should be revised.

3.) The manuscript has a sufficient list of references (33 references in total). But there is no comprehensive coverage of research in terms of geography of citations. No references to international studies in the field. The list of references is intended to demonstrate the depth of the authors’ study of the material, the relevance and interest of their research. 

3.1.) The depth of study is demonstrated with the number of references – is sufficient.

3.2.) Relevance – with the availability of research in recent years – on the verge of sufficiency.

3.3.) Interest – with the availability of research by scientists from different countries - is not sufficient (absent).

I ask the authors to take this recommendation seriously. In their manuscript, the authors analyze studies performed by scientists in only one country. Since you are publishing your manuscript in an international publication, it is necessary to demonstrate the international relevance and interest of this issue. This can be done by analyzing the studies of scientists from different countries.

It is imperative to supplement the list of references with studies of scientists from different countries over the past 3-5 years to show geographical (general/global) interest and relevance.

Major revision of References might be sufficient if these tests have been performed. Otherwise, the paper should be considered as rejected in the present form.

Below I present a few papers relevant to this study that could greatly improve the manuscript. The authors have the right to use the material proposed or offer their own versions of international studies to increase the geography of citation.

4.) In the introduction when analyzing previous studies, the authors make inaccuracies or provide information that overloads the text and often their claims are not accompanied with evidence. It is important for readers to know the essence (main idea) of the research you are referring to when analyzing previous work. 

In the introduction, it is necessary to analyze the previously completed work and note what has been done, what are the shortcomings, and what has been done incorrectly. 

4.1) I am not a native speaker, but nevertheless, in my opining, the authors form a very long sentences, which are very difficult to perceive. Such sentences greatly reduce the easy perception of the material.

4.2) In the introduction, the authors refer to several works and quite rightly state what is done in this study. However, the authors do not explain why this study is interesting: what has been done right or wrong, what can be learned from the study, what needs to be corrected or improved and why this research is important.

4.3) From my point of view, most of the information presented in the Introduction is redundant. Some information is duplicated to some extent in other sections. For example, lines 38-48 are redundant in this section. If the authors consider this material to be mandatory, it would be better to place it in the Materials and Methods section in the sub-section: subject of the study.

4.5) The authors have not compared enough previous literature. Recommend authors should extend your discussion.

4.6) The authors claim about Conception of In-situ Leaching Mining of Deep Bauxite. However  However, studies on evaluating the possibility of leaching, determining the level of extraction by this method, selecting a solution for leaching, and more have not been analyzed practically.

4.7) The authors claim about searching of Countermeasures of Water Pollution Prevention and Control. However, there is no analysis of impact of mining industry on the environment and the choice of options to reduce this impact.

5.) At the end of the introduction, the brief conclusion of the analytical study of earlier papers is not quite correctly formulated. The authors summarized their analysis and identified unresolved issues not quite rightly. This conclusion should make it possible to characterize the actual question posed, the purpose of the study and the tasks to be solved to achieve this goal. For example: Analyzing the above, it can be noted that ... is a very topical issue. Therefore, the purpose of this study is ... and to achieve this, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: 1); 2); ... 

This conclusion is not entirely consistent with the title of the manuscript. In the title, the authors declare two aims: «Conception of In-situ Leaching Mining of Deep Bauxite» and «Countermeasures of Water Pollution Prevention and Control». However, there is only one aim at the end of the introduction. It is necessary to bring it into line.

6) Section 2. Too much information, which overloads the text and reduces the ease of reading of the study.

7.) It is necessary to indicate who made figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? If this is the author's merit, then it is necessary to indicate: compiled by the authors; if this is a borrowed figure, then it is necessary to indicate the source. 

8.) I would recommend avoiding group references, for example [5-11], [12-17]. From my point of view, allowed up to three; more than three references are not acceptable and must be deciphered. Each paper you refer is unique and the studies you refer deserve more proper and careful review to demonstrate (and prove) its importance for the current research. It is necessary to demonstrate in detail the essence of each study and their need for your work. 

9.) Methods section. Please describe the X-Ray analysis conducting in more details.

9.1) the authors need to enrich the section as soon as possible. At least, the authors should provide the materials’ images and testing equipment;

9.2) please provide information about the material for research (for example, shear, chip, fracture or something else).

10.) Methods section. The methods section should describe in more detail how the microstructural analysis was carried out:

10.1) equipment, its characteristics;

10.2) the sequence of experiments.

11.) It is not clear to me for what purpose the authors carried out X-ray phase and microstructure analyses, if the authors do not further summarize and use this information?

12.) Considering previous recommendations, I would like to note that the authors have very poorly disclosed the main subject of the study.

There are many studies on safe underground leach mining. The authors address issues of environmental safety and minimization of mining impacts on the environment.

For example:

12.1) Golik V.I., Stas G.V., Liskova M.Yu., Kongar-Syuryun C.B. Improvement of the occupational safety by radical isolation of pollution sources during underground ore mining. Bezopasnost' Truda v Promyshlennosti 2021, 2021(7), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.24000/0409-2961-2021-7-7-12.

This study focuses on minimizing the impact of productive brines on the environment. The authors investigated the penetration of these brines through the fracture system into the mass, established the radius of penetration and proposed a way to isolate the sources of contamination.

12.2) Rybak Y., Khayrutdinov M., Kongar-Syuryun C., Tyulyayeva Y. Resource-saving technologies for development of mineral deposits. Sustainable Development of Mountain Territories 2021, 13(3), 405-415. https://doi.org/10.21177/1998-4502-2021-13-3-406-415.

In this study multifactorial mathematical model of degradation of environmental ecosystems as a result of the impact of waste is formulated. Also the prospect of the transition of mining production to an innovative principle of organization, which excludes the storage of waste, is noted, for which it is advisable to combine physical-technical and physical-chemical technologies at the design stage in the technological process of resource development.

From my point of view, analysis of studies (12.1) and (12.2) will allow the authors to eliminate the comment 4.7.

12.3) Kongar-Syuryun C.B., Aleksakhin A.V., Eliseeva E.N., Zhaglovskaya A.V., Klyuev R.V., Petrusevich D.A. Modern Technologies Providing a Full Cycle of Geo-Resources Development. Resources 2023, 12, 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12040050.

This paper describes the possibility of leaching of metals from geo-raw materials. The sequentially-selective extraction of metals from raw materials by changing the alkalinity (ph factor) of the agent is proposed, which significantly increases the extraction of the valuable component, reduces the agent consumption and increases the economic efficiency of the leaching method used.

12.4) Golik V.I., Klyuev R.V., Martyushev N.V., Brigida V., Efremenkov E.A., Sorokova S.N., Mengxu Q. Tailings Utilization and Zinc Extraction Based on Mechanochemical Activation. Materials 2023, 16, 726. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020726.

The authors studied the leaching process and achieved the maximum extraction of the valuable component from the geo-raw materials. The studies on the extraction of the valuable component from the geo-raw material by leaching were carried out with different activation times and irrigation of the working solution with hydrochloric acid of differential concentration.

From my point of view, analysis of studies (12.3) and (12.4) will allow the authors to eliminate the comment 4.6.

Authors are free to use the material I have suggested or propose their own versions of international studies to increase the geographical citation.

13.) The conclusion is not correctly formed.

13.1) Conclusion – summary of the study without repeating the wording given earlier in the manuscript. It is exactly the way of presenting the material that makes it easier for the reader to perceive the information presented. The mistake of incorrectly forming conclusion is a consequence of the incorrect presentation of the introduction noted by me in remark (5) due to the fact that when writing the introduction, the aims and objectives are not formulated.

13.2) Points (1)-(5) are not derived from the present study. The authors have not carried out a geological survey, have not investigated its mineralogical composition or anything else. From my point of view, these data were obtained by the authors from analyzed sources. I recommend to be placed in the results section.

13.3) Point (6) is derived from this study but presented in a very vague way. There is a need to be more specific.

13.4) Conclusions should briefly characterize the result of the study, for example:

As a result of the study 

(1) the dependence of … was obtained.

(2) it was found that ...

(3) and so on.

The conclusion needs to be revised.

 

Summary: The manuscript is not a finished research work. The corrections are needed. The chosen research topic is relevant. From my point of view, the authors failed to present their research correctly and clearly, which reduced its value and worsened the ease of perception of the material presented. From my point of view, the manuscript cannot be published in the open press without correction in accordance with my suggestions. Significant improvement is needed.

Author Response

The authors thanks very much to the reviewer for the helpful suggestions. We have revised thoroughly the manuscript, taking into account all the comments provided by the reviewer. The revision and our responses are included in separate attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

In-situ leaching mining is currently one of the promising technologies. With the right approach, such technology can be environmentally friendly, safe and cost-effective. The article considers the possibility of in-situ leaching mining of deep bauxite in Ordos basin.

The article considers in detail the geological and hydrogeological structure of the Ordos basin. A possible concept of in-situ leaching mining of deep bauxite is presented.

The following question about this article:

1. In the overview part of the article, attention is paid only to the geological and hydrogeological structure of the territory. The existing technologies of in-situ leaching mining are not considered.

2. It is not clear what is the novelty of the proposed solutions for in-situ leaching mining in comparison with existing technologies.

3. It is not clear how in Fig. 14 the polymer resin will fill the layer on the roof and the floor of the bauxite layer. This technology should be described in more detail.

4. The References presents scientific research carried out only in the Asian region, although the technology of in-situ leaching mining is used all over the world.

5. Conclusions about the possibility of leaching should be based on the results of laboratory studies. There is no description of such studies.

6. The article should be supplemented with information about direction of authors further research.

Author Response

The authors thanks very much to the reviewer for the helpful suggestions. We have revised thoroughly the manuscript, taking into account all the comments provided by the reviewer. The revision and our responses are included in separate attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript "In-situ Leaching Mining Technique for Deep Bauxite Extraction and the Countermeasures for Water Pollution Prevention: An Example in the Ordos Basin, China" by Zhizhong Li, Yi Zhang, Tengyue Luo, Peng Xia, Huayi Mu, Pingping Sun f, Xin Wang, Jianhua Wang was submitted for second review.

As can be seen from the submitted manuscript and the explanatory note to the review, the authors did a lot of work to make changes in accordance with the comments. The revised manuscript is a completed scientific study on a highly relevant topic within the global economic and industrial framework, which is assessment of raw materials recoverability by underground leaching method considering evaluation environmental safety of this technology. The revised version of the manuscript, in my opinion, fully satisfies the requirements of a scientific article and can be published in the open press. 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

In my opinion the manuscript has been
sufficiently improved.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for submitting the manuscript to the journal of Water. Its topic is very interesting. The subject matter of the article no fits into the scope of the journal. However, the current version of the paper suffers from a number of weaknesses related to the empirical strategy used. The article is not written correctly, includes a poor discussion of the research findings. It has not logical structure, no clearly described the research area and methodology. The results are not presented in a clearly structured manner. The bibliography was not relevant to scientific articles.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study investigates the geological characteristics of bauxite resources in the Ordos Basin and their vertical orientation using sedimentary feature maps. The research results of this paper aim to provide a theoretical basis for water pollution prevention and control such as green mining of deep bauxite in the Ordos Basin, polymer resin perfusion, well network seepage prevention and plugging, and establishment of a dynamic monitoring system. The manuscript should be well organized. A design for post-mining tailings disposal appears to be required, as well as an inventory of mining methods, particularly those applicable to the Ordos Basin. In addition, English writing should be concise and revised. Significant revisions to the manuscript are suggested.