The Correlation of Roasting Conditions in Selective Potassium Extraction from K-Feldspar Ore

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper. My main remark is the quality of the English. I would suggest that before resubmission, you have the manuscript read by someone with English as native tongue. Contrast and brightness of figure 2 need be improved. There are also some inconsistencies in the text: conderning table 4 (line 168,169), table 5 (line 193, 194). And in line 229 - 230, is written: "The formula of muscovite is the same as the microcline, however, the decomposition temperatures of them are different". This is wrong. The chemical formulas are different, but the composition is similar. The decomposition temperatures, on the other hand, are indeed different.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable explanations and improvement’s on this paper. The editing job was completed according to comments and the answers are given below.

Reviewer 1

This is an interesting paper. My main remark is the quality of the English. I would suggest that before resubmission, you have the manuscript read by someone with English as native tongue. Contrast and brightness of figure 2 need be improved. There are also some inconsistencies in the text: concerning table 4 (line 168,169), table 5 (line 193, 194). And in line 229 - 230, is written: "The formula of muscovite is the same as the microcline, however, the decomposition temperatures of them are different". This is wrong. The chemical formulas are different, but the composition is similar. The decomposition temperatures, on the other hand, are indeed different.

Contrast and brightness of figure 2 were improved.

English editing was done.

The quality of paper was improved by further English editing.

Because there was not a particular change in extraction values for all feed sizes, we decided to use the coarsest feed size. However, unexpectedly we observed a sticky condition in crucible after roasting process, but the second coarsest (106 microns) did not resulted with sticky condition. All experiments were repeated 3 times and the results were the same. Unfortunately, we cannot explain this situation.

At Page 2, temperature was added.

We decided that Table 5 is not necessary. So, we have removed it.

The mistake in the lines 229-230 was corrected.

At page 6, line 146, the sentences were revised.

At page 10, line 242, the date of the reference was added.

Reviewer 2 Report

The strong point of this paper is that the experimental work can be of real interest to the scientific community. However, that experimental work is not adequately presented and  3 important weaknesses were detected that suggest a deep revision of the paper by the authors.

1-A deep revision of English translation from Turkish is needed.

2-Be careful with definitions (line 10, this is not the definition of industrial mineral; line 103, that is not the definition of liberation size), references about comments (needed in line 38 and 51, for instance), and techniques (table 1 cannot be a result from ICP - perhaps from XRF; Line 99, Rietveld method is applied to XRD diffractograms, why included when describing SEM?; Line 119, AAS is Absorption, not Adsorption, etc). Please review carefully that part (Materials and Methods) because it is probably the worst part of the paper

3-Results, however, show the real value of the experimental work performed. While some English expressions must be improved, interesting facts are presented that can be of real interest for readers. Nevertheless, it is suggested to merge Results with Discussion, for the current version has real discussion in the Results paragraph and a the current Discussion paragraph is really poor; do not forget that discussion should lead to final conclusions of the research.

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their valuable explanations and improvement’s on this paper. The editing job was completed according to comments and the answers are given below.

Reviewer 2

The strong point of this paper is that the experimental work can be of real interest to the scientific community. However, that experimental work is not adequately presented and 3 important weaknesses were detected that suggest a deep revision of the paper by the authors.

1-A deep revision of English translation from Turkish is needed.

The quality of paper was improved by further English editing.

2-Be careful with definitions (line 10, this is not the definition of industrial mineral; line 103, that is not the definition of liberation size), references about comments (needed in line 38 and 51, for instance), and techniques (table 1 cannot be a result from ICP - perhaps from XRF; Line 99, Rietveld method is applied to XRD diffractograms, why included when describing SEM?; Line 119, AAS is Absorption, not Adsorption, etc). Please review carefully that part (Materials and Methods) because it is probably the worst part of the paper.

 

The definition at Line 10 was deleted. We did not give the definition of the liberation size in Line 103. The liberation size and degree produced from FEI MLA 650F was shared.

Analysis in Table 1 were done by ICP not XRF.

All mineralogical and chemical analyses were accomplished in order to characterize the ore sample.

3-Results, however, show the real value of the experimental work performed. While some English expressions must be improved, interesting facts are presented that can be of real interest for readers. Nevertheless, it is suggested to merge Results with Discussion, for the current version has real discussion in the Results paragraph and a the current Discussion paragraph is really poor; do not forget that discussion should lead to final conclusions of the research.

According to your suggestions, results and discussion parts of the manuscript were combined. Sentences and expressions were revised and improved.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The new version of the paper has significant style improvements. However, the methodological flaws pointed in the first revision were not solved and the rebuttal is not satisfactory. For instance, Table 1 cannot show the result of an ICP analysis, for ICP yields results in terms of elements, not oxides; nor any LOI data are needed because conventional ICP sample preparation is performed with acid digestion. This reviewer is convenced that Table 1 results come from an XRF analysis, in which sample preparation is performed through strong sample oxidation, and this is why LOI data is presented, and the elements content is expressed in terms of oxides. Maintaining the position of presenting Table 1 as ICP results evidences a serious lack of knowledge on minerals characterization, and this cannot be published this way. If authors insist in publishing ICP results, please change Table 1 for direct results from ICP equipment (without further interpretation in terms of oxides).

The authors do not answer to the question about Rietveld method; as it is expressed, it sees that  Rietveld methodology is applied on SEM data; that methodology was developed to get a quantitative approach from qualitative results on XRD output data. The mention maintained in the revised version is not recommended for publication that way.

Regarding the reference to liberation size, in line 102 authors mention "liberalization analysis", instead of "liberation analysis". Maintaining the reference to liberation size in the previous version of the manuscript evidences a lack of knowledge about the definition of liberation size. Expressing that "K-feldspar is liberated below 200 μm with liberation degree of about 90%" means that, below 200 microns, 90% of particles containing k-feldspar are liberated (100% k-feldspar); that is, MLA graphical results should show that 90% of particles with yellow color should be  "fully yellow particles"; however, results in Figure 3 show clearly that this is not the case.

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer-2 for his/her valuable explanations and improvement’s on this paper. The editing job was completed according to comments and the answers are given below:

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER-2

The new version of the paper has significant style improvements. However, the methodological flaws pointed in the first revision were not solved and the rebuttal is not satisfactory. For instance, Table 1 cannot show the result of an ICP analysis, for ICP yields results in terms of elements, not oxides; nor any LOI data are needed because conventional ICP sample preparation is performed with acid digestion. This reviewer is convenced that Table 1 results come from an XRF analysis, in which sample preparation is performed through strong sample oxidation, and this is why LOI data is presented, and the elements content is expressed in terms of oxides. Maintaining the position of presenting Table 1 as ICP results evidences a serious lack of knowledge on minerals characterization, and this cannot be published this way. If authors insist in publishing ICP results, please change Table 1 for direct results from ICP equipment (without further interpretation in terms of oxides).

All oxides were converted to the elemental bases.

The authors do not answer to the question about Rietveld method; as it is expressed, it sees that  Rietveld methodology is applied on SEM data; that methodology was developed to get a quantitative approach from qualitative results on XRD output data. The mention maintained in the revised version is not recommended for publication that way.

Related sentences were deleted.

Regarding the reference to liberation size, in line 102 authors mention "liberalization analysis", instead of "liberation analysis". Maintaining the reference to liberation size in the previous version of the manuscript evidences a lack of knowledge about the definition of liberation size. Expressing that "K-feldspar is liberated below 200 μm with liberation degree of about 90%" means that, below 200 microns, 90% of particles containing k-feldspar are liberated (100% k-feldspar); that is, MLA graphical results should show that 90% of particles with yellow color should be  "fully yellow particles"; however, results in Figure 3 show clearly that this is not the case.

According to the liberation analyses results, liberation degree was detected and changed as 75% for the sample.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The new version improved significantly from the initial version both in form and content. It can be suitable already for publication in present form