Minimally Active Neutralization of Acid Mine Drainage through the Monte Carlo Method
, Vidal Aramburu Rojas 1, Luis Arauzo 1, Carlos Raymundo Ibañez 2,* and Francisco Dominguez 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, use the subscripts and superscripts in the chemical formulas.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the journal editors and administration as well as the reviewers, for dedicating the time to our study.
Our responses follow, and we are ready to take whatever steps required to improve the quality of our responses, study and corresponding manuscript.
Reviewer 1- Please, use the subscripts and superscripts in the chemical formulas.
This has been completed.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper concerns the neutralization of acid mine drainage using lime, fly ash, and aluminum hydroxide. The authors emphasized the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) to improve system performance. Unfortunately, I am not convinced to recommend this manuscript since the findings are not new facts.
Below other remarks
1. The overall writing should be improved; the manuscript is full of typos and controversial statements. Many statements in the introduction need to be supported by references;
3. Dolomite Lime is a Calcium Magnesium Carbonate not MgCO3 as you write.
45. Please correct Pyrolysis (dry combustion without O2) at 1600 ±°C.
6. Figure 2 and the accompanying text are misplaced. In addition, this map has no scale, no geographical coordinates, no legend, etc.
7. Table 2. How did you get this data? You can't just say that they are provided by the mining company without any reference? Same for Table 3.
8 it is not clear the purpose of running the Monte Carlo simulation here; please Highlight how easy the method predict the results.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the journal editors and administration as well as the reviewers, for dedicating the time to our study.
Our responses follow, and we are ready to take whatever steps required to improve the quality of our responses, study and corresponding manuscript.
Reviewer 2-
This paper concerns the neutralization of acid mine drainage using lime, fly ash, and aluminum hydroxide. The authors emphasized the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) to improve system performance. Unfortunately, I am not convinced to recommend this manuscript since the findings are not new facts.
Thank you for this observation as it was also mentioned by another reviewer. We have tried to emphasize the novelty of a minimally-active method that neutralizes AMD as well as reduces sulfur content to irrigation standards in order to incentivize mining operations to return their process water to the water cycle in the Introduction and Discussion.
Below other remarks
- The overall writing should be improved; the manuscript is full of typos and controversial statements. Many statements in the introduction need to be supported by references;
We have looked to complete this observation by doing a more intensive review and removing or citing corresponding statements.
- Dolomite Lime is a Calcium Magnesium Carbonate not MgCO3 as you write.
This has been corrected.
- Please correct Pyrolysis (dry combustion without O2) at 1600 ±°C.
This has been corrected.
- Figure 2 and the accompanying text are misplaced. In addition, this map has no scale, no geographical coordinates, no legend, etc.
This map has been removed.
Table 2. How did you get this data? You can't just say that they are provided by the mining company without any reference? Same for Table 3.
We have adjusted the wording of this section in Line 208-210.
- it is not clear the purpose of running the Monte Carlo simulation here; please Highlight how easy the method predict the results.
We have tried to elaborate in the end of the discussion how the Monte Carlo method has adjusted the dosages for the three reagents in comparison to previous work with the same reagents in Lines 334-336.
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript entitled "Minimally-active neutralization of acid mine drainage through the Monte Carlo mehtod" is quite interesting and, in general, written well. Overall, this manuscript is drafted well but there are some specific points need to be clarified and revised prior to consider it for further process.
1. Abstract must have significant numbers (results), as well as future research recommendations must be added.
2. Recently published literature is a significant part of any research background. Atleast 10-15 recently published relevant articles must be added in this section.
3. Novelty point must be added in clearer manner.
4. Though this is a revised manuscript, I found that discussion is still shallow and need a careful revision by adding indepth comparision between current findings and previous studues. VERY IMP.
5. Future research prospective and applicability of this work should be added in the manuscript in a separate section.
6. Entire manuscript should be checked and modified carefully for language and formatting mistakes.
Entire manuscript must be checked and revise carefully for language and formatting mistakes.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the journal editors and administration as well as the reviewers, for dedicating the time to our study.
Our responses follow, and we are ready to take whatever steps required to improve the quality of our responses, study and corresponding manuscript.
Reviewer 3-
Manuscript entitled "Minimally-active neutralization of acid mine drainage through the Monte Carlo mehtod" is quite interesting and, in general, written well.
Overall, this manuscript is drafted well but there are some specific points need to be clarified and revised prior to consider it for further process.
- Abstract must have significant numbers (results), as well as future research recommendations must be added.
We have adjusted the Abstract accordingly in Lines 22-27
- Recently published literature is a significant part of any research background. At least 10-15 recently published relevant articles must be added in this section.
We have added 4 new relevant articles to the Introduction and Discussion. In searches for our specific research question, is there a dosage of CaO, Fly Ash and Al(OH)3 that can neutralize AMD and reduce sulfur content did not have many responses along this specific line. There is much focus on metal decontamination with a variety of reagents, especially sustainable ones, but we weren’t able to find too many studies looking to tackle the main challenges with possibly cost-effective AMD remediation.
As such we have just focused on the last 10 years of research.
- Novelty point must be added in clearer manner.
Thank you for this observation. We have tried to emphasize the novelty of a minimally-active method that neutralizes AMD as well as reduces sulfur content to irrigation standards in order to incentivize mining operations to return their process water to the water cycle in the Introduction and Discussion. Predominantly we have looked to show that previous work has determined that metal decontamination is well understood but achieving neutralization along with reduced sulfur content, while not applicable everywhere in the world, certainly in many AMD situations, has been presented successfully with only minimally active methods.
- Though this is a revised manuscript, I found that discussion is still shallow and need a careful revision by adding indepth comparision between current findings and previous studues. VERY IMP.
Thank you for this insightful observation. We hae completely rewritten the Discussion taking your observation in mind. We sometimes got lost trying to compare all the different aspects of the previous work, but we understand its importance and feel that it presents the novelty of this study, and similar to what we wrote for your observation #3.
- Future research prospective and applicability of this work should be added in the manuscript in a separate section.
We have completed this in line 366.
- Entire manuscript should be checked and modified carefully for language and formatting mistakes.
We have looked to complete this observation by doing a more intensive review and removing or citing corresponding statements.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript was improved.
Reviewer 3 Report
Revised manuscript is now in much better quality but authors must pay attention on formatting issues in the final submission, especially references.
Language is much better now but there are still some minor issues which authors should correct in final submission.
