Ultrasonication Improves the Flotation of Coal Gasification Fine Slag Residue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work focuses on the flotation performance improvement of coal gasification fine slag residue via ultrasonication. The influence of ultrasonication on CGFS was investigated using microscopic methods such as XRF, XPS, BET, FTIR, SEM. The paper has achieved some research results, and it is quite interesting and good for circular economy development of coal-based industry. Overall, the paper is well-written, but there are also the following problems:

1. I recommend that authors include a sentence in their abstracts that describes the study's purpose.

2. In the introduction, it is needed to connect the state of the art to the paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of the paper goals.

3. The methods section should include a more detailed description. The flotation chemicals dosage is negligent in the flotation method section.

4. The unit of calorific value in Table 1 is missing and the spelling of the word is incorrect. I suggest that the authors should examine the use of word and unit.

5. The authors should examine the format of all figures. For example, the size of figure 3, 13 and14 is not identical. I suggest that the authors should examine and ensure all the format and size of the pictures are consistent.

6. The use of abbreviations and acronyms are not standard. The authors should review the use of abbreviations and acronyms. When the abbreviations and acronyms are used for the first time in the abstract and text, they should be defined and then used uniformly.

7. The use of format is not standard. For example, the m3/min in L107, 3 should be in superscript. The authors should check all the format in this manuscript.

8. There exits the lack use of the blank space in the manuscript. The authors should use blank space when it is around mathematical symbols, between values and units and quote references, such as [26], [27], [28], [29].

9. The conclusion needs further refinement. Although the conclusions drawn are adequately supported by the data. I believe they could be presented in a more appealing and engaging manner to better convey their significance and impact.

10. Please carefully read the instructions for authors and revise your paper's format.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We greatly appreciate your hard work and professional guidance.

In response to the comments raised in the review, we have made the following revisions and provided corresponding replies for each:

1. I recommend that authors include a sentence in their abstracts that describes the study's purpose.

Reply: in the abstract, a concise description of the study's objectives provided in line 15. The modified content is as follows:

This study primarily investigates the mechanism of ultrasonic treatment in optimizing flotation-based decarbonization of CGFS and its impact on CGFS modified with surfactants. The objective is to maximize the carbon ash separation effect to support the clean and efficient utilization of CGFS.

2. In the introduction, it is needed to connect the state of the art to the paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of the paper goals.

Reply: According to your suggestion, we have modified introduction part in the line 72. The modification content is as follows:

While previous research has addressed various methods for decarbonization, the specific application of ultrasonic treatment, especially in combination with surfactant modification, remains relatively unexplored.

3. The methods section should include a more detailed description. The flotation chemicals dosage is negligent in the flotation method section.

Reply: The methods were further revised to provide a detailed description of the experimental design in line 116. The modification content is as follows:

In the surfactant pretreatment flotation test, a surfactant was added to the slurry during preparation at a concentration of 6kg/t. All other procedures were identical to those used in conventional flotation.

4. The unit of calorific value in Table 1 is missing and the spelling of the word is incorrect. I suggest that the authors should examine the use of word and unit.

Reply: Table 1 has been reviewed, and the spelling of the word 'calorific value' has been corrected, along with the addition of the appropriate unit for the calorific value.

5. The authors should examine the format of all figures. For example, the size of figure 3, 13 and14 is not identical. I suggest that the authors should examine and ensure all the format and size of the pictures are consistent.

Reply: The format of all figures, including Figures 3, 13, and 14, have already been thoroughly examined to ensure consistency in size and format.

6. The use of abbreviations and acronyms are not standard. The authors should review the use of abbreviations and acronyms. When the abbreviations and acronyms are used for the first time in the abstract and text, they should be defined and then used uniformly.

Reply: The use of abbreviations and acronyms throughout the abstract and text was reviewed to ensure consistency and standardization. Additionally, abbreviations and acronyms were defined upon first use and used uniformly thereafter.

Line 30: Tween-80 was changed to Polysorbate (Tween-80);

Line 16, line 35 and line754： Coal gasification slag was changed to CGFS;

Line 481：Scanning electron micrograph was changed to SEM;

Line 516, 543: Infrared spectra was changed to FTIR.

7. The use of format is not standard. For example, the m3/min in L107, 3 should be in superscript. The authors should check all the format in this manuscript.

Reply: The entire manuscript was thoroughly reviewed to ensure that all formats including units such as 'm³/min,' follow standard conventions.

8. There exits the lack use of the blank space in the manuscript. The authors should use blank space when it is around mathematical symbols, between values and units and quote references, such as [26], [27], [28], [29].

Reply: The document was carefully revised to ensure appropriate spacing around mathematical symbols, between values and units, and when citing references.

9. The conclusion needs further refinement. Although the conclusions drawn are adequately supported by the data. I believe they could be presented in a more appealing and engaging manner to better convey their significance and impact.

Reply: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. Conclusion 3 has been better improved and the modifications are as follows:

Among the various treatment methods investigated, ultrasonic treatment was found to be effective in desorbing the adsorbed agent on the surface of CGFS due to the pre-dominance of electrostatic force, intermolecular van der Waals force, and hydrogen bonding in the adsorption process. Ultrasonic treatment should be employed to enhance the hydrophobicity of the surface of coal gasification slag and increase the number of surface-active sites. Subsequently, adding a surfactant can further increase the adsorption amount of the surface-active agent, leading to a more effective treatment of CGFS. Which result in tailings with an ash content of up to 90.17%.

10. Please carefully read the instructions for authors and revise your paper's format.

Reply: We change the format to ensure that the format of our paper is complied with the guidelines provided.

11. Minor editing of English language required.

Reply: We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in the revised paper.

We believe your peer review comments have played a crucial role in enhancing the quality of our manuscript, making it more readable and academically valuable. We once again thank you for your patience and guidance and look forward to your further evaluation of our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper „Ultrasonication Improves the Flotation of Coal Gasification Fine Slag Residue” is very interesting and contains many experimental and analytical results. The manuscript has been carefully prepared with numerous references to literature. The authors presented the results of their research in detail, separating the following chapters Effect of ultrasonic modification of CGFS on flotation decarbonization and Effect of ultrasonic pretreatment on surfactant-modified CGFS. The paper is well constructed and the results are clearly presented. The subject of the paper is of interest to engineers dealing with mineral flotation. Minor editorial shortcomings are described below:

·       Table 2. – Chemical Composition – is: 其它, should be: other(?),

·       Figure 6. – is: shows (…), should be: Shows (…),

·     Line 53 – is: (…) the adhesion coal bubbles, should be: (…) the adhesion gas bubbles,

·       References – I propose to standardize the format of cited literature - regarding names/first name initials.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We greatly appreciate your hard work and professional guidance.

In response to the comments raised in the review, we have made the following revisions and provided corresponding replies for each:

1. Table 2. – Chemical Composition – is: 其它, should be: other(?),

Reply: "其它" has been changed to " other " in Table 2.

2. Figure 6. – is: shows (…), should be: Shows (…),

Reply: "shows" has been changed to "Shows" in 2.  Figure 6.

3. Line 53 – is: (…) the adhesion coal bubbles, should be: (…) the adhesion gas bubbles,

Reply: "the adhesion coal bubbles " has been changed to " the adhesion gas bubbles " in line 57.

4. References – I propose to standardize the format of cited literature - regarding names/first name initials.

Reply: Names and first name initials have been standardized throughout the references for consistency and accuracy.

We believe your peer review comments have played a crucial role in enhancing the quality of our manuscript, making it more readable and academically valuable. We once again thank you for your patience and guidance and look forward to your further evaluation of our revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx