Microstructure and Melting Loss Behavior of Blast Furnace Incoming Coke and Radial Tuyere Coke

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript the distribution of coke in the radial plane of the blast furnace tuyere was studied, and the fundamental characteristics and microstructure of the radial tuyere coke and the incoming coke were compared and examined using a variety of analytical techniques. Overall, this manuscript is well written and interesting results were presented. However, the background of the introduction is insufficiently and should be improved. I suggest publishing this manuscript major revision and modification as well as after language revisions.

1.     I suggest the authors to rewrite the abstract with a focus on background, objectives, methodology, main findings, and conclusion. Please add a sentence which shows the necessity of the study. Please avoid general information in the abstract.

2.     In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review with a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Discuss the previous studies that you are referring to.

3.     Please rewrite the last paragraph in the introduction to show the novelty.

4.     The result and discussion part need some more detailed discussion with published paper citation from journal of Coatings.

5.     Conclusion should be written as a single paragraph with only significant findings of the study. The current form is too long.

6.     The quality of the figures should be improved.

7.     A further read throughout the manuscript to correct minor spelling mistakes is worth doing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors analyzed the coke distribution at different positions in the radial plane of blast furnace tuyere a comparative approach and compared the properties and microstructure of both incoming coke and the radial tuyere coke were compared and analyzed by XRD, Raman, SEM and BET. Major Corrections are needed.

 

• Abstract session:

 

1)    The abstract section needs to be improved. In fact, an abstract is a concise summary of an experiment. It should be brief: typically under a certain number of words (200-300) depending on the journal. The purpose of the abstract is to summarize the research paper by stating the purpose of the research, the experimental method, the findings, and the conclusions. the experimental part and the salient conclusion are missing in this abstract. please reformulate this part.

• Introduction section:

 

2)    In the introduction, the author should clearly define the originally of this study. The Introduction section does not provide the current state-of-the-art and your contribution beyond it. The novelty of your research is not highlighted at all.

• Experimental section:

3)    How did the authors measure the components (Table 2) of coke? Since the chemical analysis cannot be obtained from SEM as mentioned by the authors in the experimental section. Why not using XRF??Please specify it in the experimental section.

4)    Some important characterization results such as Thermal Gravimetric and Differential Thermal Analysis (TGA/DTA) for non-isothermal reactivity measurement of coke samples are missing. Please provide these analyses in the revised version.

• Results section

5)    From your results, several questions about coke degradation, the exact reaction mechanisms that occur while coke is descending in a BF, still need to be answered. Please comment on this issue.

a)      

 

Minor issues

 

Something is missing in 1rst sentence :

which is one of the reasons coke cannot be replaced for a long time should be be updated as follows: which is one of the reasons why coke cannot be replaced for a long time

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comment for authors in the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the suggestions and comments raised satisfactorily. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered most of my questions. The manuscript can be published in its present form.