Research on Classified Treatment of Electrolytic Zn Anode Slime Based on μ-XRF and Cluster Heatmap
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript the authors found that there were two different forms of electrolytic Zn anode slime, namely, silting area and conventional area, and the silting area accounted for about 15% of the total anode plates based on mm-XRF, thickness measurement, morphology observation and liquid content detection. The authors suggested that anode slime with a thickness of 0.1mm in conventional and silting areas could be regarded as a kind of resource. The manuscript may be useful for the researchers working in the fields of hydrometallurgy industry, electrochemistry and separation science. The manuscript is not well written in English and should be revised carefully to remove the errors and make an accurate description of the content.
The following points should be well-addressed in a revised version of the manuscript.
(1) What is the research objective of the manuscript? It should be clearly described and demonstrated in Introduction section.
(2) In the Conclusion section the authors stated that This provides theoretical and technical support for the research and development of intelligent self-learning anode slime classification equipment for the Zn hydrometallurgy industry. However, the authors did not describe any relation between the studied results with the intelligent self-learning equipment. What is the characteristics of this kind of equipment? How does it work?
(3) There are some grammar errors or typos in the manuscript. <i> Line 18, “based on …” should be corrected to “Based on …”. <ii> Line 22, “among them” should be corrected to “Among them”. <iii> Line 359, “based on …” should be corrected to “Based on …”. <iv> Line 274, “as shown” should be corrected to “As shown”. <v> And so forth.
(4) The format of the author names in the Reference List does not match that of the journal. For instance, the authors of Ref. 1 should be listed as “Xu, F. Y.; Jiang, L. H.; Li, J.H.; Zou, C.; Wen, X.C.; Zhang, G.; Li. Z. Q.; Duan, N.” Please revise the format of authors’ list for all references.
The English expression is poor and extensive editing of English language required before the manuscript could be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper the authors describe the evolution of slime accumulation over refining anodes.
Although this study does not bring significant novelties, it could be of interest to professionals in the sector concerned, except that the manuscript will have to be thoroughly revised to correct numerous oversights that suggest an overly hasty submission.
In addition to a thorough review of the manuscript I suggest these points in particular:
11. The abstract is too long, it should be shorter to give readers an immediate idea of the work and to entice them to read more extensively.
22. It is not specified what is meant by u-XRF and mm-XRF.
33. There are many formatting inconsistencies. For example, only in lines 50-52 there are 3 different fonts.
44. Chapter 2 is called test, when it should be called materials and methods.
55. It is not clear what the authors mean by a power supply of 34 kA/day. Do they mean a charge? in this case it would be kA*day, which in any case would be better to reconvert to a more common unit such as Coulomb or kAh.
66. The specifications of the epoxy resin are mangled, AB glue is not enough.
77. Figure 9 is grainy and has very low quality, it should be redone.
English need to be revised to improve grammar and syntax.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is interesting and valuable because of its strict relation with industrial process which is not very often in the scientific publications. Because of some mistakes and imprecision it need to be improved.
Editorial remarks and some minor mistakes:
- the font size of the majority of the first paragraph in the “Introduction” section is bigger than in the rest of the manuscript
- the font type of some words is different than in the rest of the manuscript, eg. “manganese” – line 52
- there are some double/triple spaces, e.g. in line 52 or line 170
- please, use a dot (not comma) as a separator in the values/amounts
- Line 92 “based on…” or Line 154 “the powder…” or Line 172 “the changing…” or Line 185 “in the electrolyzer…” or Line 216 “under the microscope…” or Line 220 “this was due to…” or Line 241 “during the process…” – should be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence
- Line 139 and Line 266: “μ-. XRF” - please remove the dot
- Line 139: “mm-xrf” - please, use capital letters for XRF (be consistent)
- The unit of potential is Volt (capital V) – please, correct it in Table 1
Ad. 2.1.
- Please, clarify what was the electrolysis process. Based on the introduction I believe that the electrolysis is the zinc production process (by cathodic deposition) but it should be clearly written.
- What were the materials (and their compositions) of anodes and cathodes?
- What was the current density of the process?
- The electrolyte composition was the electrolyte composition was 55g/L of Zn2+ and 195g/L of H2SO4. What about Pb and Mn? What was the source of the two metals (Pb, Mn) which appeared in the slime? Was the concentration of the metals constant in the electrolyte?
Ad. 2.2.1.
- Line 109: Based on the Figure 1 I believe that the selected testing areas (No. 1, No. 14 and No. 28) are not electrolyzers (as it was written) but sections on one multi-electrode electrolyzer
Ad. 2.2.3.
- Line 155: The phrase “the average polishing times were 20 times” is not clear. Please, correct it.
- What is the difference between the samples presented in Figure 3? Are there different areas of the same anode, according to Fig. 1? If yes, please clarify which ones are from upper/middle/lower part. The authors may use Figure 1 to indicate the areas by using the same symbols (e.g. #1; #2…)
Ad. 3.1.
- Figure 4: A vernier caliper was used to measure the slime layer's thickness. How many points of one anode were used for the thickness definition? Please, use the error bars in the diagram to show the standard deviation.
- Are the authors sure that the caliper accuracy is 0.001 mm? Please, include in the methodology (2.2.1 part?) the name of the producer and the model of the caliper.
- The authors indicated the changing trend of the anode slime thickness (Line 172). Please, point out the reason for the phenomenon, especially after the 7-8 days of increasing.
- Figures 5, 6, 7 – what were the errors in the element content? Please, add the error bars.
- There’s no discussion about the presented changes in composition. What was the reason for such changes?
- Line 217 and Fig. 8. The information about “160 times magnification” is not sufficient for the images presented “on paper” or “electronic sheet” (file) in which the real magnification is totally different. Please, use SCALE BARs for the images; the scale bars could be also used for the photos of anode plates. Please, present the microscopic images as separate figures (not in a small window).
- All of three pictures in Figure 3 have bad quality. They are indistinct and not acceptable. Please, correct it by using high-resolution images.
Ad. 3.2.
- Figures 10 b ,c, d: please, describe the X and Y axis (What do they present?) The description in the text is not sufficient.
Ad. 3.3.
- The aim (reason) of determination of profile/distribution of the elements concentration in the slime is not clear, especially from the technological point of view. Why the knowledge could be important? Please, explain it.
- Fig. 11.: The caption of the Figure is not clear. Please correct it.
- Fig. 11: Quality of figs. a-c are not sufficient. Please, improve it.
Conclusions
- Conclusion no. 3 is too complex. Please, simplify it.
Applying to my critical remarks the paper needs to be significantly improved. I recommend to publish it in the MDPI Processes journal after correction/complement the paper in accordance with them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised their manuscript carefully by considering all comments and suggestions from both Reviewers and now the revised manuscript has met the publication standard of Applied Sciences. Therefore, I would like to recommed the current revised version of the manuscript for publication.
English used is fine and a small change may be made during the editing process.
Author Response
The reviewers have demonstrated rigorous professionalism, patience, and meticulousness, making significant contributions to the improvement of the paper's quality. Thank you!
Sincerely,
RuiChao Xu
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions and it is now ready for publication.
The authors revised the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions and it is now ready for publication.
Author Response
I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to thoroughly reviewing my manuscript. Your insightful suggestions and meticulous review helped me enhance the clarity and coherence of my research. Thank you!
Sincerely,
RuiChao Xu
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript can be accepted in its present form.
I suggest just a little correction in Line 210 - the word "but" should be written with a lowercase letter.
I recommend to publish the paper in the MDPI Processes journal.
Author Response
Thank you for your good comments. According to your suggestion, It has been modified as required.
Line 210：but
I am deeply grateful for the reviewer's expertise and professional guidance throughout the reviewing process. Your thoughtful comments and recommendations not only strengthened my study but also broadened my perspectives on the subject matter.
Sincerely,
RuiChao Xu
