Analysis of the Effect of Surfactants on the Performance of Apatite Column Flotation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease check the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Below we reproduce the reviewers’ original comments, followed by our responses (R) in italics. Changes in the text in response to the reviewers have been highlighted.
Reviewer #1:
Comments and suggestions for authors:
The paper ‘Analysis of the effect of surfactants on the performance of apatite column flotation’ investigates the effect of different types of surfactants on the performance of apatite column flotation, which has certain academic value and practical significance. The effect of different types of surfactants on the performance of apatite column flotation was investigated, which has certain academic value and practical significance. The influence of surfactants on the bubble size, surface tension and apatite flotation indexes was studied through experiments, and the adsorption mechanism of surfactants on apatite surface was investigated by FTIR analysis. The experimental design is reasonable, the data are rich and the analysis is detailed. However, the thesis still has deficiencies in some aspects, which need to be further improved and refined.
- in the introduction part, the importance of phosphorus ore as a global phosphorus resource is elaborated in more detail, but the description of the specific application of phosphorus ore in different fields and the current status of its resources can be more in-depth and comprehensive, in order to highlight the importance and urgency of the study of phosphorus ore flotation.
Response: The introduction part has been revised as requested by the reviewer and additional information has been provided in new page 1.
- In the description of the bubble size measurement method, although the use of a high-speed digital camera and ImageJ software is mentioned, the specific steps and parameter settings of the image analysis can be further detailed to ensure that other researchers can repeat the experiment.
Response: The bubble size measurement method has been revised as requested by the reviewer and new comments has been added as suggested (new page 3).
- When describing the experimental setup, the article only briefly describes its structure and components, and lacks a detailed explanation of the function and working principle of each part. For example, how does the design of the air distributor affect the generation and distribution of bubbles?
Response: Additional information about the experimental setup has been included in the revised manuscript (new page 3).
- In the conclusion section, although some of the innovations and contributions of this study were mentioned, the limitations of the study were not fully discussed. Understanding the limitations of the study will help in subsequent research and it is recommended that the shortcomings of this study be clearly stated in the conclusion.
Response: The conclusion has been revised, and additional information about subsequent research has been added to the new conclusion section (new page 13).
- In the Results and Discussion section, for the effect of surfactant on bubble size and surface tension, the trend of change is simply described, and it is suggested that some theoretical analyses should be added to explain why such a change occurs and the relationship between such a change and the mechanism of action of the surfactant.
Response: Additional information about the effect of surfactants on this process has been included in the revised manuscript (new pages 11 and 12).
We express our sincere appreciation to the reviewer for their thorough and detailed examination of this manuscript. Your insightful comments and suggestions have been immensely valuable in enhancing the quality of our work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors!
The article devoted to research of influence of surfactants on apatite flotation in column flotation is submitted for review. The theme of research is quite interesting. The paper provides new data on the influence of these reagents on the flotation of apatite.
The abstract contains the necessary information about the paper. In the section "Introduction" provides a sufficient number of references and information on the topic of the study.
In the section "materials and methods" is given a characterization of column flotation machine, which is very good to understand the features of its work. Formulas used in the work for estimation of parameters are given.
The methods and parameters of the study are described.However, the authors should add which particular gangue mineral depressor reagent was used (line 148).All reagents used for flotation should be described. Also, the paper lacks the mineral composition of the ore. There is a lack of understanding of which minerals are represented in the ore, what the gangue mineral is represented by, etc.
The Results and Discussion section is well structured. In Figure 3, for the Lupromin reagent, a decrease in Sauter bubble diameter is noted with increasing blowing agent concentration, but the size increases when the concentration reaches 50 ppm. What do the authors hypothesize this is related to? It is worth adding this in the discussion of the results.
It is worth noting that FTIR studies were performed for all the reagents studied, which provides a more complete understanding of the flotation behaviour of the reagents.
The conclusion contains the main results of the research. However, the authors should remove the pronoun "we" and use the passive voice.
Author Response
Below we reproduce the reviewers’ original comments, followed by our responses (R) in italics. Changes in the text in response to the reviewers have been highlighted.
Reviewer #2:
Comments and suggestions for authors:
Dear Authors!
The article devoted to research of influence of surfactants on apatite flotation in column flotation is submitted for review. The theme of research is quite interesting. The paper provides new data on the influence of these reagents on the flotation of apatite.
The abstract contains the necessary information about the paper. In the section "Introduction" provides a sufficient number of references and information on the topic of the study.
In the section "materials and methods" is given a characterization of column flotation machine, which is very good to understand the features of its work. Formulas used in the work for estimation of parameters are given.
The methods and parameters of the study are described. However, the authors should add which particular gangue mineral depressor reagent was used (line 148). All reagents used for flotation should be described. Also, the paper lacks the mineral composition of the ore. There is a lack of understanding of which minerals are represented in the ore, what the gangue mineral is represented by, etc.
Response: The revised 'Materials and Methods' section now includes the mineral depressant reagent, all other reagents used, as well as the mineral composition of the ore (new page 5).
The Results and Discussion section is well structured. In Figure 3, for the Lupromin reagent, a decrease in Sauter bubble diameter is noted with increasing blowing agent concentration, but the size increases when the concentration reaches 50 ppm. What do the authors hypothesize this is related to? It is worth adding this in the discussion of the results.
Response: A new comment regarding the decrease in Sauter bubble diameter has been included in the revised text (new page 6).
It is worth noting that FTIR studies were performed for all the reagents studied, which provides a more complete understanding of the flotation behaviour of the reagents.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this positive feedback.
The conclusion contains the main results of the research. However, the authors should remove the pronoun "we" and use the passive voice.
Response: The conclusion has been revised as requested by the reviewer, using passive voice.
Dear Reviewer, We would like to thank you for the time spent reviewing our manuscript and for helping us improve the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
