Carbonate Pore Shape Evaluation Using Digital Image Analysis, Tomography, and Effective Medium Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The writing of the paper should be improved. There are some errors in the sentences. Besides, some sentences are lengthiness. A common abbreviation of self-consistent model is SCM instead SELF.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Carbonate pore shape evaluation using digital image analysis, tomography, and effective medium theory" examines the influence of microporosities in carbonate rocks to estimate effective elastic properties. The manuscript cannot be published in its present form due to the lack of scientific novelty, vague statements, and the general impression that the authors do not have a profound understanding of rock physics and digital rock physics methods. I make this serious point based on the wording, the lack of awareness of the current state of science (essential references for the described topic), and the resulting conclusions. The manuscript primarily uses established standards that have already been applied and explained in much greater detail in other publications. The integration of digital rock physics to gain information about the geometries of the pores is highly questionable, as essential aspects of these methods are neither described nor are possible errors pointed out, nor do they have any influence on the results obtained at all. After reading the manuscript, the reader is left asking why expensive CT measurements were performed if the results cannot be used meaningfully. This has mainly to do with the low resolution of the CT images. The sizes of microporosities in carbonate rocks (micritic phase) are far below the resolution capability of modern CT scanners. But even at the chosen resolution of 12 or 37 µm/voxel, it is questionable how the authors intend to arrive at meaningful pore aspect ratios - because detailed phase differences between pore and solid (individual gray-scale intensities) and pore throats can not be resolved.

Detailed comments can be found in the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author, 

Your manuscript is not bad, I have mentioned some of the basic review comments. Please rectify the comments and resubmit it for your expectation. 

Review comments to the author (Applied Sciences -2142434)

In this manuscript, the author wrote an article entitled “Carbonate pore shape evaluation using digital image analysis, tomography, and effective medium theory” suitable for publication, but the concerned author has to rectify the below-mentioned minor review comments in the “Applied Sciences”.

 I have made a few observations after reading this work. This article might be accepted after fixing the ensuing minor review comments. However, kindly correct the following:

 

1.         What are the four most important variables in digital photography? In the field of image processing, what are the four main approaches?

2.         For what purposes does digital image processing find use? What are the fundamental components that make up an image in digital form?

3.         The medium theory serves what purpose exactly? What are the most fundamental aspects of the medium theory?

4.         What is the maximum size of the tumour that a CT scan can detect? Please explain in a few words about the thickness of a CT scan indicates.

5.         If a doctor examines a tumour, are they able to determine whether or not it is cancerous? Without performing a biopsy, are doctors able to determine whether or not a mass contains cancer?

6.         In order to positively identify calcite, which method of identification would be the most effective? Calcite possesses a number of peculiar characteristics; what are some of them?

7.         How do you determine whether or not a material is porous? Which techniques are utilised in the process of determining the micro crack porosity?

8.         Is it possible that micro cracking could make a composite material more tough? How are microscopic cracks able to form?

9.         How does one determine the topographic map's aspect? What are five different topographic features that can be found on a topographic map?

10.     In what way can the voids ratio of soil be calculated? Is a void ratio of 0 (zero) possible?

 

It would be best if you corrected the above comments and resubmitted them according to your expectations.

 

 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author:

 

The paper has the standard structure: 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results 4. Discussion and 5. Conclusions.

1.Introduction

The authors have done a good job of reviewing the state of the art in the referenced literature in References. The introduction seems to me well developed and well-founded with the bibliographical references that are not very up-to-date.

The dates of the references are between 1952-2010 and 2018 (1 ref), 2020 (1 ref).

It does not indicate where sample number 3 is on the map.

 

2. Materials and Methods

It should describe the geographic and geological environment. It would also be necessary to add a figure with a geological map and general geological section.

The methodology is well explained and the materials well developed.

line 128...30f? 55b?

They should reorder section 2.1 because there is petrographic information that should be located in section 2.2.

This section would need some additional figure.

3.Results

Table 1.. what is sm3? Switch to gm3.

Figure 4 should highlight in a more visible way the areas where the small samples are cut.

In section 3.2....line 279: Rock Physics modeling I recommend using acronym RPM in successive mentions.

Likewise, in line 286...(1a) it should be (1)

Section 3.3 should be rewritten as it contains information that should be included in Chapter 2.

 

4.Discussion

This chapter is well explained.

 

5. Conclusion

The conclusions are consistent with the proposed objectives.

 

I do not recommend the publication of this manuscript because those aspects indicated by the reviewers should be corrected.

 

Best regards

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Review for Carbonate pore shape evaluation using digital image analysis, tomography, and effective medium theory

 

The manuscript "Carbonate pore shape evaluation using digital image analysis, tomography, and effective medium theory" examines the influence of microporosities in carbonate rocks to estimate effective elastic properties. Compared to the first draft of the manuscript, I see a decisive improvement in the presentation, explanation, and conclusion. Nevertheless, I cannot support a publication at the current time.

 

Mainly this is because the novelty is strongly limited with the application of rock physics templates in the context of the present study. The point about analyzing pore geometries using digital rock physics methods is interesting. However, this resolution still needs to be higher to deliver promising results. I understand that this aspect cannot be changed since the samples have already been irrevocably destroyed (lines: 198-201). I think the authors are following a good track here, but the manuscript needs considerable revision to publish the numerous thoughts and approaches in a more streamlined context. For example, the reader gets a very detailed look at the regional geology and the petrographic analysis of the samples. However, this is hardly addressed in the discussion. The carbonate samples' heterogeneity is a huge problem considering CT images with an appropriate field of view vs. resolution. Therefore, the presented motivation and workflow are not convincing for the samples. What is the main motivation for studying the presented samples (are those end-members for the, e.g., regional geology or the reservoir)? From which depth are those samples (the manuscript is unclear in this case; lines: 117–131)? Would there have been other possibilities to determine the pore geometries and to integrate these results into the rock physics model (e.g., by numerous thin section analyses)?

 

I think the authors need to think again about the main message they want to focus on in their manuscript. Of course, this could also be done in numerous revisions, but considering the effort and time required for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor, I do not think this is appropriate.

 

Please find detailed comments in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx