Separating Silver from Tin Silver Alloy Residue: Effect of Agitation Rate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors some explanations are needed and must be added to text of paper.

1. Did You analysis dross by XRF or other methods. Did You check alloy residue after agitation process refer to Ag content. How You analysis weight of silver before and after separation?
2. Zinc ingot and refractory impurities analysis should be add to table 1.
3. Last sentence form section 2.1 must be rebuilt.
4. All text of paper should be carefully check.
5. Dimensions and shape of impeller are essential. Position of impeller in the metal bath.
6. Figure 1, legend should be improve e.g. graphite crucible.
7. Figures 2-4 are from other works, Did Authors have permissions of using? Maybe it will be better write text on thermodynamics dependence for Ag-Sn-Zn system or create own phase diagrams. Data on method using for creating presented phase diagrams are mandatory.
8. How many times experiment were repeated.
9. Refer to sketch 5, Authors should explain in the 2.3 section that volatilization are not performed in this study.
10. In the text of section 3.1 table 2 should be.
11. Subsection of 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are not required and it will be better present results in one 3.1 section.
12. What means an expression different temperature in the section 3.2.1.
13. Did amount of zinc was calculated refer to 112 g of Sn-Ag alloy.
14. Refer to figure 13 please explain how long agitation was done? Did You calculated SE after 90 min for different agitation rate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your precious time in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments.

The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried their best to address every one of them including checking the grammar and improving our English by using the English language Editing professionals. 

Kindly find the attached response. 

Sincerely, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Due to the very poor English, the work is practically incomprehensible. It must be rewritten competely.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your precious time in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments.

The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried their best to check the grammar and improve their English by using the English language Editing professionals. 

Kindly find the attached response. 

Sincerely, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,
The article is interesting, however it needs extensive improvements to be published. In general, the Introduction needs to show the novelties of this work. What is innovative about this work? The references used are very old and do not show the state of the art today. In addition, I suggest a complete review of the methodology, as this chapter needs to give details of all experiments performed and all parameters tested. The reader, if he so wishes, should be able to completely repeat this study, however, as the methodology is presented, this is not possible. Details are lacking, information is lacking.

Specifically:

• page 2 - line 55: Where does this residue come from? what is the origin?
• page 2 - line 59-62: confusing text - rewrite
• page 3 - line 87: What is the shape of the samples? bars? plates?
• page 6 - line 126: How were the impurities removed? give details. Did the alloy melt and the impurities not?
• page 6 - line 131: 112 grams is the result of the enrichment step? 127 grams - impurities = 112? give details.
• page 6 - line 132: How much Zn was added? What agitation rates have been studied?
• table 2: Why Zn and SiO2? where did these impurities come from? explain in detail
• figure 6: This figure was not cited in the text and was not explained/discussed. Have 3 enrichment tests been carried out? this information is not included in the methodology.
• figure 7: Poor image quality - especially mapping. This figure is not useful for the manuscript. It was not mentioned or discussed in the text.
• figure 8: Confused figure. When you added 25% of Zn, it was possible to separate 25% of Ag. Is that correct? in this case, has the remaining 75% of the Ag been lost?
• figure 11: What does "silver zinc accelerated" mean? Have 4 agitation rates been tested? this needs to be included in the methodology.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your precious time in reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments.

The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried their best to address every one of them including checking the grammar and improving their  English by using the English language Editing professionals. 

Kindly find the attached response. 

Sincerely, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be published in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions.  It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version.

Sincerely, 

Reviewer 3 Report

Suggested revisions were carried out by the authors.
In this way, I suggest publishing the article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestion,  It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The English minor spell check was carried out. 

Sincerely,