Extraction of Cobalt and Iron from Refractory Co-Bearing Sulfur Concentrate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The positive of this manuscript has an extensive experimental work of conditions for the extraction of Cobalt. However, the reviewer has a serious concern about the text present in the whole document. An extensive review of English and grammar is required. There are unnecessary repetitive words and very long paragraphs that make difficult to understand and ideas lose sense, author(s) must consider re-write the text of this document considering small sentences
In the whole result section, first should be presented the analysis of obtained results and then the discussion that supports those results. Analysis of results should be stronger. Also, in this section, there is a great amount of information that should be in methodology. Many additional observations are below:
Abstract
Row 18: It is suggested to change to ’oxidizing roasting, segregation roasting and magnetic separation are used to …’ as those are used sequentially applied and not as one process.
Row 25 Is this CoFe2O4 (cobalt ferrite) or Co2FeO4 (Spinel oxide), same in Row 24 or are 2 different minerals if so where was produced the CoFe2O4? Same in Row 480 and Row 482
Row 31: must be segregation roasting ’temperature’ of 950, instead of time
Rows 23 to 34. this is a very long paragraph and the results scattered and separate of the conditions that made very difficult to understand. It is suggested to rewrite into smaller sentences or use dots instead of semicolons
This Abstract does not present the objective of this work
Introduction
Row 42 and 43 the sentence here is repeated in row 49 to 51
Row 66 and 67 cobaltite is repeated 7 times. Is it serious?
Row 38 to 68: This paragraph is very long and repetitive of about cobalt resources, distribution and countries. Author(s) should consider re-write and synthesize better this information and include references to the mentioned statistics
Row 75 and 76, cobaltite is repeated 3 times. Why?
Row 78 and 79: How can ‘Single cobalt minerals, such as cobaltite and thiocobaltite, can directly obtain cobalt concentrate by flotation’? consider re-write properly
Row 85 Is (3.0 t/m2·d) capacity of the plant? why m2 is in it?
Row 97 Check and re-write this: ‘which will The equipment has serious corrosion’
Row 115 The author(s) state ‘a new technology’ of two stages. is this true or it is a new methodology of two stage. Because roasting and magnetic separation are not new technologies or invented in this work
Row 124 What is Vi-Ti? correct this? Should be V-Ti? also correct it in Row 473 and check in the whole text
Row 129 Table 2 is repeated twice the last should Table 3. must be corrected
Row 130: Granularity in Table 4. Must be corrected
Table 3. Name of minerals in the table should fit in one line. Avoid cut the words
Row 137; Erase ‘all of which have’ and change by ‘with’
Row 138: erase ‘and producing area in’ and change by ‘from’
Row 139: what does means ‘was processed’? it was classified in five…, divided, PSD measured? explain and correct if necessary?
Row 152: What does means ( r) in the ‘r’ electric atmosphere? Must be corrected or explained
Row 151 to 156. The are many repetitions of ‘electric atmosphere’. Does the tube furnace work with an oxygen atmosphere? or electric atmosphere? or oxidizing atmosphere? Clarify and re-write this paragraph. Author(s) should synthesize and articulate better the sentences avoiding repetitions. In Row 177 was used ‘tubular atmosphere furnace for oxidizing roasting. Clarify and use only one real atmosphere, other is the equipment
Row 167 and 168 Consider use and space to separate the dimensions of the mill and Davis tube ‘6.25 dm3Φ240×90’ and XCGS-13(Φ50). Also, state ‘diameter, length or volume’ and not only symbols or any symbol must be explained
Procedure
Row 177 to 187: in the procedure should be mentioned how much sample was used and much of the reagents to tun the test?
Results and discussion
Row 207: The figure 3 doesn’t show ‘desulfurization rate decreases’, it increases with temperature
Row 227: wrong ‘Roasting time was conducted’, as it is seen that roasting with the variation of oxygen % was carry out
Row 231 Add ‘to be stable with higher than 70% of oxygen’
Row 235 re-word ‘the sulfide from the oxide is realized the transformation’ check the grammar
Row 260-264 This paragraph is methodology should be in section 2. Same Row 240-242, Row 227-229, Row 217-219
Row 260: It should be ‘Calcium chloride’ and not chloride calcium. Same should be ‘sodium chloride’ instead of chloride sodium
271 Check English ‘sodium chloride is conducive to improving’ reword. Do you mean sodium chloride improve …
Row 278, Fig 7 The scales in both y-axis of grade and recovery should be the same in both figures to see the comparison of the effect of calcium and sodium chloride
Row 282 to 285. This is methodology, should be in section 2
Row 283 and 284 Can you explain what is ‘magnetic separation grinding’? in only one process?
Row 295: Why do you mention ‘is difficult to grind the material to a particle size less than 60 μm’ If you say on row 284 that the size of the sample is 85% finer than 60 μm
Row 302 to 305: This is methodology. Same in Row 337-340, row
Row 312 to 315: How does this paragraph support your results? Here there is a vague analysis of results
Row 320 to 323: This is methodology
Row 323 to 324: Re-write this sentence, check English grammar
Row 325 to 327 Why this literature is in this section. It does support your results
Row 327 to 333: author don’t explain why reasonable use 10% coke as the Fig 10 shows that 8% coke has the highest grade and recovery after there is a non-significant increment of recovery and the grade decreases (with 10% coke)
Row 342 Check English ‘specific surface area of reaction particles’?
Row 360 to 362: This is methodology
row 369 to 370: Incomplete sentence and need reword i.e. The 90% of particles finer than 60 µm are suitable for….
Row 376 and 378. This should be in methodology
There is not an analysis of the results of the first figure in Figure 12
Roe 389: Chose better words. Change ‘realized’ by ‘carried out or developed’ same in other parts of the document
Conclusions
Row 480 Why ‘cobaltite’ is repeated twice? need correction
Conclusion: Consider re-write into small sentences
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Row 18: It is suggested to change to ’oxidizing roasting, segregation roasting and magnetic separation are used to …’ as those are used sequentially applied and not as one process.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been revised.
Point 2: Row 25 Is this CoFe2O4 (cobalt ferrite) or Co2FeO4 (Spinel oxide), same in Row 24 or are 2 different minerals if so where was produced the CoFe2O4? Same in Row 480 and Row 482
Response 2: The statement in the conclusion part is wrong, it should be changed from cobalt pyrite and sulfur cobalt ore to CoFe2O4, which has been modified, please review.
Point 3: Row 31: must be segregation roasting ’temperature’ of 950, instead of time Rows 23 to 34. this is a very long paragraph and the results scattered and separate of the conditions that made very difficult to understand. It is suggested to rewrite into smaller sentences or use dots instead of semicolons.This Abstract does not present the objective of this work
Response 3: The e summary has been revised. Thank you for your valuable advice.
Point 4: Row 42 and 43 the sentence here is repeated in row 49 to 51, Row 66 and 67 cobaltite is repeated 7 times. Is it serious?
Response 4: The repeated statement has been modified. Thanks again for your suggestion.
Point 5: Row 38 to 68: This paragraph is very long and repetitive of about cobalt resources, distribution and countries. Author(s) should consider re-write and synthesize better this information and include references to the mentioned statistics
Response 5: According to your suggestion, the long sentence of this paragraph has been revised.
Point 6:Row 75 and 76, cobaltite is repeated 3 times. Why?
Response 6: Redundant repetition of words that have been modified.
Point 7:Row 78 and 79: How can ‘Single cobalt minerals, such as cobaltite and thiocobaltite, can directly obtain cobalt concentrate by flotation’? consider re-write properly
Response 7: It is not clear that flotation can preconcentrate minerals such as cobaltite and thiocobaltite, but whether qualified cobalt concentrates can be obtained depends on the specific ore properties.
Point 8: Row 85 Is (3.0 t/m2 •d) capacity of the plant? why m2 is in it?
Response 8: Here refers to the oxidized calcined fluidized bed, the bed surface per unit area of the processing capacity.
Point 9: Row 97 Check and re-write this: ‘which will The equipment has serious corrosion’
Response 9: The meaning is not clear and has been revised.
Point 10: Row 115 The author(s) state ‘a new technology’ of two stages. is this true or it is a new methodology of two stage. Because roasting and magnetic separation are not new technologies or invented in this work
Response 10: This is not very precise. New has been removed. It is not a new technique to use oxidizing roasting for cobalt-bearing sulfur concentrate, but it is an innovation to use segregation roasting and magnetic separation.
Point 11: Row 124 What is Vi-Ti? correct this? Should be V-Ti? also correct it in Row 473 and check in the whole text
Response 11: This should be V-Ti. The writing error has been completely revised. Thank you for your careful review.
Point 12: Row 129 Table 2 is repeated twice the last should Table 3. must be corrected
Response 12: This should be table 3, which has been modified in the article.
Point 13: Row 130: Granularity in Table 4. Must be corrected
Response 13: It has been modified here, the expression is unclear.
Point 14: Table 3. Name of minerals in the table should fit in one line. Avoid cut the words
Response 14: The form format has been adjusted. Thank you for your suggestion.
Point 15: Row 137; Erase ‘all of which have’ and change by ‘with’
Response 15: It has been revised, thank you.
Point 16: Row 138: erase ‘and producing area in’ and change by ‘from’
Response 16: Expression error, modified.
Point 17: Row 139: what does means ‘was processed’? it was classified in five…, divided, PSD measured? explain and correct if necessary?
Response 17: There is indeed a problem of unclear expression here, which has been modified in the article, please review.
Point 18: Row 152: What does means ( r) in the ‘r’ electric atmosphere? Must be corrected or explained
Response 18: This is a typo, delete (r), thank you for your advice.
Point 19: Row 151 to 156. The are many repetitions of ‘electric atmosphere’. Does the tube furnace work with an oxygen atmosphere? or electric atmosphere? or oxidizing atmosphere? Clarify and re-write this paragraph. Author(s) should synthesize and articulate better the sentences avoiding repetitions. In Row 177 was used ‘tubular atmosphere furnace for oxidizing roasting. Clarify and use only one real atmosphere, other is the equipment
Response 19: Statement repeated, modified. The oxidizing roasting was carried out in the tube atmosphere furnace and the segregation roasting was carried out in the muffle furnace.
Point 20: Row 167 and 168 Consider use and space to separate the dimensions of the mill and Davis tube ‘6.25 dm3Φ240×90’ and XCGS-13(Φ50). Also, state ‘diameter, length or volume’ and not only symbols or any symbol must be explained
Response 21: Thank you for your advice, Φ 240 x 90 here have been expressing cone mill appearance size, Φ 50 for magnetic separation tube diameter, added the dimensions.
Point 22: Row 177 to 187: in the procedure should be mentioned how much sample was used and much of the reagents to tun the test?
Response 22: It has been modified and supplemented to indicate the dosage of each test in the oxidizing roasting condition test and the segregation roasting condition test.
Point 23: Row 207: The figure 3 doesn’t show ‘desulfurization rate decreases’, it increases with temperature
Response 23: It is not clearly stated here. It has been modified.
Point 24: Row 227: wrong ‘Roasting time was conducted’, as it is seen that roasting with the variation of oxygen % was carry out
Response 24: Expression error, modified.
Point 25: Row 231 Add ‘to be stable with higher than 70% of oxygen’
Response 25: Thank you for your suggestion, which has been revised.
Point 26: Row 235 re-word ‘the sulfide from the oxide is realized the transformation’ check the grammar
Response 26: The description is unclear and has been modified.
Point 27: Row 260-264 This paragraph is methodology should be in section 2. Same Row 240-242, Row 227-229, Row 217-219
Response 27: Statement repeated, modified.
Point 28: Row 260: It should be ‘Calcium chloride’ and not chloride calcium. Same should be ‘sodium chloride’ instead of chloride sodium
Response 28: It has been revised, thank you.
Point 29: 271 Check English ‘sodium chloride is conducive to improving’ reword. Do you mean sodium chloride improve …
Response 29: Statement expression is not suitable, has been modified.
Point 30: Row 278, Fig 7 The scales in both y-axis of grade and recovery should be the same in both figures to see the comparison of the effect of calcium and sodium chloride
Response 30: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have adjusted the value of Y-axis to the same point so as to make a visual comparison.Thanks for your advice.
Point 31: Row 282 to 285. This is methodology, should be in section 2
Response 31: This is the test condition, because the test is a single factor test.
Point 32: Row 283 and 284 Can you explain what is ‘magnetic separation grinding’? in only one process?
Response 32: Here refers to the magnetic separation process, segregation roast ore material grinding fineness.
Point 33: Row 295: Why do you mention ‘is difficult to grind the material to a particle size less than 60 μm’ If you say on row 284 that the size of the sample is 85% finer than 60 μm
Response 33: It has been revised, please review.
Point 34: Row 302 to 305: This is methodology. Same in Row 337-340, row
Response 34: It has been readjusted. Thank you for your advice.
Point 35: Row 312 to 315: How does this paragraph support your results? Here there is a vague analysis of results
Response 35: The analysis is not clear, it has been modified, please review.
Point 36: Row 320 to 323: This is methodology
Response 36: It has been readjusted. Thank you for your advice.
Point 37: Row 323 to 324: Re-write this sentence, check English grammar
Response 37: It has been revised, please review.
Point 38: Row 325 to 327 Why this literature is in this section. It does support your result
Response 38: The reference citation is not in place and has been modified.
Point 39: Row 327 to 333: author don’t explain why reasonable use 10% coke as the Fig 10 shows that 8% coke has the highest grade and recovery after there is a non-significant increment of recovery and the grade decreases (with 10% coke)
Response 39: There is an error in the data. We have verified the original record of the test and corrected the data.
Point 40: Row 342 Check English ‘specific surface area of reaction particles’?
Response 41: It has been revised, please review.
Point 42: Row 360 to 362: This is methodology
Response 42: Here are the test conditions.
Point 43: row 369 to 370: Incomplete sentence and need reword i.e. The 90% of particles finer than 60 µm are suitable for….
Response 43: It has been revised, please review.
Point 44: Row 376 and 378. This should be in methodology
Response 44: It has been revised, please review.
Point 45: There is not an analysis of the results of the first figure in Figure 12
Response 45: It has been revised, please review.
Point 46: Roe 389: Chose better words. Change ‘realized’ by ‘carried out or developed’ same in other parts of the document
Response 46: It has been revised, please review.
Point 47: Row 480 Why ‘cobaltite’ is repeated twice? need correction
Response 47: Here is the statement error, has been modified.
Point 47: Conclusion: Consider re-write into small sentences
Response 47: Thank you very much for your valuable advice. In the description of the results, there are indeed repeated statements, which are not simple enough. Please review and revise according to your suggestion.
Finally, thank you again for your review work, which is very meticulous and will greatly improve the level of our article. Other modifications have also been made, and we hope to get your approval. At the same time, we also hope that you can put forward valuable suggestions again, which will be conducive to the improvement of our follow-up work. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact to us, looking forward to your good news.
Kind regards,
Junhui Xiao
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is important from scientific point of view and is very interesting, but it is necessary to change some parts.
a) The part 3. The results and discussion contains of important data that are unclearly presented. This part is written in a repetitive manner, mainly the sentence structures. Why do the authors describe the diagrams in the text when all the data are already presented in those diagrams? I believe this part could be shortened and improved.
To make the article easier to read, I suggest to vary the structure of the acapits: Roasting temperature test was conducted to investigate the influence rules of sulfur removal, / Roasting time test was conducted to investigate the influence rules of sulfur removal / Roasting time test was conducted to investigate the influence rules of sulfur removal etc.
It does not apply only to this part, but to the whole text. It should be revised for its language, comprehension and structure.
b) Conclusions part ought to be rephrased, I suggest to write them using points:
1.
2.
3.
They must be presented in clearer and understandable form.
c) Many remarks have been added in the manuscript, please read them carefully.
The cobalt bearing should be changed to Co-bearing within the whole manuscipt.
The authors use very often the term cobaltite and cobaltite - please clarify what do you mean?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: a) The part 3. The results and discussion contains of important data that are unclearly presented. This part is written in a repetitive manner, mainly the sentence structures. Why do the authors describe the diagrams in the text when all the data are already presented in those diagrams? I believe this part could be shortened and improved.
To make the article easier to read, I suggest to vary the structure of the acapits: Roasting temperature test was conducted to investigate the influence rules of sulfur removal, / Roasting time test was conducted to investigate the influence rules of sulfur removal / Roasting time test was conducted to investigate the influence rules of sulfur removal etc.
It does not apply only to this part, but to the whole text. It should be revised for its language, comprehension and structure.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable advice. In the description of the results, there are indeed repeated statements, which are not simple enough. Please review and revise according to your suggestion.
Point 2: b) Conclusions part ought to be rephrased, I suggest to write them using points:
2.3.
They must be presented in clearer and understandable form.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Please see the conclusion of the article for details.
Point 3: c) Many remarks have been added in the manuscript, please read them carefully.
The cobalt bearing should be changed to Co-bearing within the whole manuscript. The authors use very often the term cobaltite and cobaltite - please clarify what do you mean?
Response 3: Cobalt bearing has been changed to Co-bearing. Due to my negligence, serious mistakes have been made. Cobaltite has appeared in the article many times.
Finally, thank you again for your review work, which is very meticulous and will greatly improve the level of our article. Other revisons have also been made, and we hope to get your approval. At the same time, we also hope that you can put forward precious suggestions again, which will be conducive to the improvement of our follow-up work. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Best wishes,
Junhui Xiao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the article is quite relevant, and interesting data have been obtained regarding the production of cobalt-rich concentrate. Therefore, I recommend this article for publication after correcting a number of comments:
16 the abstract should be rewritten, it should not start with the composition of the concentrate, first, you need to briefly describe the relevance
23 Written a lot, but contradictory.
49 This was already in the text earlier.
66 one cobaltite?
74 This was already in the text earlier.
76-77 About flotation also repeat.
89 Whose results are these? Need to clarify.
119 A very poor literature review of existing technologies and research on the processing of cobalt ores, it needs to be improved.
129 Incorrect table numbers.
132 3.68 Linneite + 2.65 cobalt pyrite and only 0.68 % cobalt in concentrate according to chemical analysis? If calculated by stoichiometry, Linneite alone should contain more than 2% cobalt relative to the total mass of the concentrate.
Figure 3, 4, 5 what is the Content on the y-axis?
254 Cobaltite is mentioned three times.
Figure 7-12 "Cbalt" in the legend.
480 Cobaltite is mentioned twice.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: 16 the abstract should be rewritten, it should not start with the composition of the concentrate, first, you need to briefly describe the relevance.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have revised the summary and added some background information.
Point 2: 23 Written a lot, but contradictory.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable Suggestions and rework the part.
Point 3: 49 This was already in the text earlier.
Response 3: The information is wrong and has been deleted.
Point 4: 66 one cobaltite?
Response 4: The expression is wrong, serious writing error, has been revised in the article.
Point 5: 74 This was already in the text earlier.
Response 5: The extra part has been deleted.
Point 6: 76-77 About flotation also repeat.
Response 6: The statement is repeated and has been deleted from the article.
Point 7: 89 Whose results are these? Need to clarify.
Response 7: The references are inappropriate and have been revised.
Point 8: 119 A very poor literature review of existing technologies and research on the processing of cobalt ores, it needs to be improved.
Response 8: Refer to relevant literature again for modification.
Point 9: 129 Incorrect table numbers.
Response 9: It has been modified and should be Table 3.
Point 10: 132 3.68 Linneite + 2.65 cobalt pyrite and only 0.68 % cobalt in concentrate according to chemical analysis? If calculated by stoichiometry, Linneite alone should contain more than 2% cobalt relative to the total mass of the concentrate.
Response 10: The main cobalt-bearing minerals in cobalt-bearing sulfur concentrate are cobalt-bearing pyrite and cobalt-bearing cobalt. Cobalt-bearing pyrite theory =59/(59+56+64)=32.96%, cobalt-bearing theory =59 *3/(59*3+32*3)=64.84%. It can be calculated according to the data in table 3 that cobalt-bearing sulfur concentrate theory =32.96%*2.65%+64.84%*3.68%=2.46%.As the load in the sulphur concentrate cobalt cobalt mineral is not absolutely pure cobalt pyrite mineral and cobalt mineral sulfur minerals, so in fact according to XRD diffraction quantitative mineral content, has certain deviation cobalt content and chemical analysis, chemical analysis is the real content of cobalt in sulphur concentrate reaction of cobalt, quantitative XRD diffraction mineral only as a reference for testing scheme selection.
Point 11: Figure 3, 4, 5 what is the Content on the y-axis?
Response 11: It is the content of sulfur in oxidized roasting slag.
Point 12: 254 Cobaltite is mentioned three times.
Response 12: Handwriting error. The repetition has been deleted.
Point 13: Figure 7-12 "Cbalt" in the legend.
Response 13: The error of drawing negligence has been modified.
Point 14: 480 Cobaltite is mentioned twice.
Response 14: Repeat error, corrected.
Finally, thank you again for your review work, which is very meticulous and will greatly improve the level of our article. Other revisions have also been made, and we hope to get your approval. At the same time, we also hope that you can put forward valuable suggestions again, which will be conducive to the improvement of our follow-up work. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper still requires improvment and corrections especially in English style.
For example in abstract is: Panxi area of china ---- must be of China;
The main minerals in the Co-concentrate are Fe,....etc ---- Fe, Fe2O3 etc. there are main oxides or chemical components but not minerals.
In text many times is repeated the phrase - in Panxi area of China - it was presented in the first part of the manuscript. I suggest to remove this phrase where is possible.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear,
We have made a lot of modifications to the language and hope to get your approval.Thank you again for your review work, which is very meticulous and will greatly improve the level of our article. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Good luck！
Kind regards,
Junhui Xiao
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
