Study on Efficient Removal Method of Fine Particulate Dust in Green Metallurgy Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper named “Study on efficient removal method of fine particulate dust in green metallurgy process” investigated the effects of wetting agent type, dust concentration, pressure and flue gas velocity on the fine grain removal efficiency. The interesting results are obtained. But in my opinion, the paper should be revised before publishing in the Journal of Processes.

1. In the introduction parts, the authors should summarize the results of previous researches and clarify the novelty of this paper.

2. The Experimental method is innovative? The authors should describe in detail.

3. Some studies have been investigated the similar study. The authors should compare with those studies and obtain the important significance of this paper.

4. In the Results and discussion parts, why some results have error bars, but some results have no error bars?

5. Some formats are inappropriate in the paper.

For example, the ordinate unit of Fig. 4 is Mpa?

The ordinate of Fig. 6 is in Chinese description.

The authors should modify the formatting of the paper carefully. 

The English need to be improved.

Author Response

We express our gratitude to you for your suggestions and comments, and the responses are listed below pdf document in detail. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well-written and interesting from a scientific point of view. The manuscript needs a few changes before it can be published in "Processes”.

1.       1. Check lines 87-88 for missing sentence meaning.

2.       It is advisable to incorporate additional research problems inside the introduction, along with an explanation of the strategies employed by researchers to address these challenges?

3.       It would be preferable to discuss the toxicities of higher airborne particulate matter. What reason does the present study provide for removing the particulate matter among those.  

4.       Check the line number 111 for the typographical error.

5.       Cumulative distribution % is missing in the discussion for the Figure 2.

6.       The author has to explain why blended gum works best compared to other types. Section 3.1 contains.

7.       What is this “The combination of the two graphs shows that the higher” in line number 148. Check it.

 

8.       Simplify the conclusion.

Author Response

We express our gratitude to you for your suggestions and comments, and the responses are listed below pdf document in detail. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised the manuscript well and it is suggested to be accepted after the English language should be edited. 

The English language should be edited

Author Response

We appreciate your suggestions and comments and have detailed the responses below the pdf document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf