Ore Processing Technologies Applied to Industrial Waste Decontamination: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is focused on the possibility of processing the used sand from the casting process, when the surface of sand particles is contaminated with organic carbon. Processes based on abrasive techniques are considered, where the contaminant is eliminated from the surface. The process evaluated is stirring in slurry media and light milling, in light of the parameters: removal of target contamination, recovery ratio of sand and energy consumption.

The stated purpose of the original study for a private company is indicative of the potential use and possible commercialization of the research.  This area is a reason to question the meaningfulness of the research directions set out in many works that seek to maximise novelty without regard to the need for and relevance of the knowledge gained.

Although the level of novelty of the submited manusript is lower, I appreciate the practicality, meaningfulness and relevance of the research carried out, but not the work as presented (notes below).

However, in spite of the above comments, the work shows shortcomings in the content and form of the results, and after great expectations after the introduction comes some disappointment with next parts. The following are the areas that I believe the authors should make an effort to improve/refine.

 

- Introduction, line 48/49 - the areas of recirculating the cleaned material could have been mentioned by name, not just quoted.

- The last passage of the chapter "Theoretical background" - the methods of management of the separated carbon fraction (incineration, deposition...) could be mentioned when landfilling is concerned as example for the spent untreated sand.

- Materials and methods - line 129-137 - no measurement conditions are given, only the type of instrument. For example, temperature, residence time, temperature program of TOC analysis,…. should be given or a standardised methodology (EPA, ISO, EN, DIN,....) should be specified/quoted.

- Figure 4 - the expression of LOI (A) and ICP(B) results is inconsistent in terms of the type of graphs. At the same time, the information can be presented concisely numerically, including deviations, the figure is redundant.

- Figure 6A - How did the authors determine the stabilization of 12 minutes? How is this supported, how was the data evaluated? Trend -  red dashed curve - what is the function, how was the regression formed? Figure 7A - same comment and description of the problem.

- Figure 6B, 6C - the variability in the data is very large, could this be due to the sampling method? Any comment on this?

- Line 261-265 - the energy consumptions given are misleading without deeper comment. How was the energy determined experimentally - energy meter/engine labels?   Was there any consideration of the mass of the samples processed vs. the mass of the moving parts of the apparatus for both options? This can be very misleading without further comment and quite different in the case of the intention of up-scaling the process. Any discussion towards up-scaling?

- Figure 10 - blue curve - obviously some line/function is described. What feature is it and why? If it is just to highlight a trend, you need to use a simple line of points, not a curve - some function. The same applies to the red data line, but due to the proximity of the points in the graph, the use of a line/trend is not as obvious as in the blue data line.

- It should not appear in the conclusion (line 294-296) that this is only a preliminary phase. Then the results should only be published after further validation. The study should be sufficiently powered. The last paragraph is not the same as "future outlook and perspectives" in this wording rather it excuses the fact that there are a number of unanswered questions when this might not be the case.

- As I wrote above, I very much appreciate meaningful applied research with the possibility of easy implementation into practice, but even in that case it is advisable to stick to convention in the full description and interpretation of methods/data.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

Thank you very much for all your commentas and suggestions. Please, you can find attached to this app, our responses to your questions. 

In behalf of all authors 

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

ournal: Minerals (ISSN 2075-163X)

Manuscript ID: minerals-1702126

Type: Case Report

Title: Ore processing technologies applied to waste decontamination: A case study

Authors: Hernan Anticoi, Josep Oliva Moncunill, Carlos Hoffmann Sampaio, Rubén Pérez-Álvarez, Beatriz Malagón-Picón

Section: Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy

Special Issue: Advances in Ore Processing Technologies: Crushing, Milling and Separation

 

Comments for authors:

Title: There seems to be a discrepancy between the title and the object of study of this work. It can be confusing to talk about ore and mineral processing and at the same time to talk about silica sand. Do the authors consider silica sand as a mineral? To avoid ambiguity, it is suggested to the authors to consider this title variant: "Technologies for the treatment of silica sand from a smelting process and its application in waste decontamination: A case study". Reconsider.

Abstract: It is not clear which is the definitive aim of the work. Since it is a case study, why don't the authors comment on the specific field in which these sands could be used? In the construction industry?, in the manufacture of mortars and concretes...? Please check.

Introduction. Lines 33 to 36. The authors say: "The concept of circular economy has been introduced in recent years in the development of mining and industrial activity. In the first place we have the environmental purposes: we must reduce the carbon footprint of current processes with new methods and by applying innovative technologies"… This seems to be an extract defining the circular economy, so the authors are advised to include the corresponding bibliographic citation. Check.

Introduction: the way the Introduction has been argued and structured is not adequate. Authors are advised to take into account that in the development of the Introduction they should mention the work done by previous authors, what conclusion they came to, what their successes were and how they can be improved. Authors are recommended to rewrite the Introduction and complement it with several bibliographical citations. Rewrite

Subsection 2 "Theoretical background". This subsection does not contribute anything to the work, it is recommended to remove it.  Authors should be conscious that a scientific paper should not include an extensive theoretical explanation which, moreover, belongs to other authors. Please delete.

Line: 121. Please change "Fig. 1" to "Figure 1". Check throughout the work.

Line: 131. The authors mention the use of the ASTM Standard, however, they do not mention it in the References. Please check.

Lines: 116 to 117. The authors need to argue further in the explanation of the "Loss on ignition (LOI)" method. Rewrite.

Lines 129 to 133. The authors have to describe the methods in detail. Please rewrite.

Discussion. The authors use only two bibliographic citations in the Discussion, which also appear in the Introduction. Authors are reminded of the importance of citations in the Discussion, as this helps to strengthen the arguments given and the conclusions established. It is recommended to introduce new citations and to revise this subsection thoroughly. Rewrite.

Conclusions. Lines 177 to 281. This paragraph is inadequate in the conclusions, as it is similar to what is stated in the Introduction. It is recommended to be deleted. Check.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

Thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions. Please find attached to this application our answers to your questions. 

On behalf of all authors

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The vast majority of comments were reflected in revised text. 

In my opinion, after this revision the manuscript could be accepted for publication after final proofreading. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have correctly answered the questions posed; thus, I consider that the work has been significantly improved and can be proposed for publication in the Minerals Journal.