Influence of Sinter Parameters on CO Emission in Iron Ore Sintering Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is very interesting and very useful research to explain the CO and other dangerous gasses (NOx, SO2 etc.) formation in coke which contains the organic substance and iron ore. The results of this study will make important contributions not only to the metal sector, but also to the formation of CO in the production of ceramic tiles, etc., depending on the iron composition in raw materials containing organic compounds.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Influence of Sinter Parameters on CO Emission in Iron Ore Sintering Process " (ID: metals-1770012). We have carefully read the comment which is significance for improving our paper. Revised portion are marked in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:
Point 1: The manuscript is very interesting and very useful research to explain the CO and other dangerous gasses (NOx, SO2 etc.) formation in coke which contains the organic substance and iron ore. The results of this study will make important contributions not only to the metal sector, but also to the formation of CO in the production of ceramic tiles, etc., depending on the iron composition in raw materials containing organic compounds.
Response 1: Thank you for your recognition of this paper. In the paper submitted again, we have made moderate changes in English.
Please see the attachment.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Sincerely,
Feng Wang
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is a useful assessment of the influence of sintering parameters on CO emissions during iron ore sintering. While the English language and style is acceptable and able to be understood, there is scope for improving the English usage and a quick edit by someone with a good command of English would be of benefit.
More specifically, it looks like there is an error in Equation (1) and the numerator and denominator on the right hand side need to be swapped. Furthermore, it was difficult to fully comprehend Figures 2 to 11 without having to refer back to Table 4. It is therefore recommended that the values for carbon addition, CTC, ratios of water and sintering negative pressures be clearly included in all the figures, particularly given that the caption for Figure 2 for example says "CO emission concentration during sintering at different carbon addition". The actual carbon addition is not clear in the Figure. The same comment applies to the other figure captions..
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Influence of Sinter Parameters on CO Emission in Iron Ore Sintering Process " (ID: metals-1770012). We have carefully read each comment .These comments all have great guiding significance for improving our paper. Revised portion are marked in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:
Point 1: It looks like there is an error in Equation (1) and the numerator and denominator on the right hand side need to be swapped.
Response 1: : Equation (1) was wrong due to the input error. We have modified Equation (1) on page 4.
Point 2: It was difficult to fully comprehend Figures 2 to 11 without having to refer back to Table 4. It is therefore recommended that the values for carbon addition, CTC, ratios of water and sintering negative pressures be clearly included in all the figures, particularly given that the caption for Figure 2 for example says "CO emission concentration during sintering at different carbon addition". The actual carbon addition is not clear in the Figure. The same comment applies to the other figure captions.
Response 2: The identifications in the original Figure 2 to 11 were unclear for reviewers and readers. We have added necessary explanations in the titles of Figures 2 to 11 of section 3.
Point 3: Moderate English changes required.
Response 3: In the paper submitted again, we tried our best to improve the expression of grammar, typos and professional representation of this manuscript and made many changes. And we also leverage the service for language polishing.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Sincerely,
Feng Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
REPORTS ON: metals-1770012
Although the proposed aim is very interesting and scientific and technological aspects are included, there are great numbers of weaknesses that induces to its REJECTION.
1. Firstly, no reproducibility is provided. No error ranges are included. Based on this, these attained results are merely speculative. Tables 1 and 2 are confused and based on these the results are potentially attained. This suggests that the obtained results are speculative. Secondly, all dimension and values adopted are absent of their corresponding error ranges. Again, this induces that speculative results are discussed.
2. Figs. 2, 5, 8, and 11 should be compared and at least duplicate provided. Similarly, Figs. 3, 6, 9 and 12, and also Figs. 4, 7, 10 and 13.
3. Novelty should be elucidated at initial paragraph of the proposed manuscript. Although this is implicit provided, in the present format with those attained results the research is speculative and no resubmittion is encouraged.
_ _ _ _
Author Response
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Influence of Sinter Parameters on CO Emission in Iron Ore Sintering Process " (ID: metals-1770012). We have carefully read each comment .These comments all have great guiding significance for improving our paper. Revised portion are marked in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:
Point 1: I Firstly, no reproducibility is provided. No error ranges are included. Based on this, these attained results are merely speculative. Tables 1 and 2 are confused and based on these the results are potentially attained. This suggests that the obtained results are speculative. Secondly, all dimension and values adopted are absent of their corresponding error ranges. Again, this induces that speculative results are discussed.
Response 1: Firstly, Tables 1 and 2 show the chemical compositions of raw material and the proximate and ultimate analyses of the fuels, which can allow reviewers and readers to understand the materials used in the experiment. We think this will not be confusing. Secondly, we re-analyzed 3 ~ 4 previous results, and the original Figures 4,7,10, and 13 only reflected the average. We have analyzed the original data again and provided the standard deviation for TI and SI. In section 2.2, we also supplement the error range of the smoke detector. For the accuracy of the results, after the sintering cup test, we also verified it on the sintering machine. We found that the experimental results of the sintering cup were consistent with the normal production of the enterprise, which could provide a certain proof for the experimental results of the sintering cup.
Point 2: Figs. 2, 5, 8, and 11 should be compared and at least duplicate provided. Similarly, Figs. 3, 6, 9 and 12, and also Figs. 4, 7, 10 and 13.
Response 2: To compare the effects of sintering parameters on CO emission and sinter strength, we have added a comparison of Figures 2, 5, 8, and 11 in Section 3.5 on page 12. Similarly, Figs. 3, 6, 9, and 12, and also Figs. 4, 7, 10, and 13.
Point 3: Novelty should be elucidated at initial paragraph of the proposed manuscript. Although this is implicit provided, in the present format with those attained results the research is speculative and no resubmittion is encouraged.
Response 3: We have supplemented the novelty description in the proposed manuscript's initial paragraph. At the same time, we have done experiments on the sintering machine and found that the experimental results of the sintering cup were consistent with the normal production of the enterprise. This provided certain proof for the experimental results of the sintering cup.
Point 4: Moderate English changes required.
Response 4: In the paper submitted again, we tried our best to improve the expression of grammar, typos and professional representation of this manuscript and made many changes. And we also leverage the service for language polishing.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Sincerely,
Feng Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors;
It is observed that enforces have been provided in order to solve those comments/suggestions/weaknesses indicated. However, there are remained problems, as follow:
1. The Abstract should be revised in order to unique verbal tense be used, e.g. simple present tense.
2. In the Introduction, into the last paragraph, the NOVELTY should be clarified. It is rather and poorly described.
3. Throughout all section 2, the reproducibility of all experimentations should OBLIGATORY clarified.
4. Majority parameters indicated into Table should be accompanied with their corresponding errors. At least those errors intrinsic to equipment and measurements carried out.
5. Also, throughout section 2, all dimension mentioned/described should OBLIGATORY be accompanied with their corresponding errors. Similarly, when the section 3 is proposed, all mentioned and discussed values should be accompanied with their errors.
6. Considering Figs.2 and 3, one of the attained results should be replotted in order to include OBLIGATORY it REPRODUCIBILITY. At least the DUPLICATE should be shown. Based on this, those other plots (similar), it can be stated that analogue reproducibility is applied. If this suggestion is not adopted, in my FRANK OPINION, the paper/manuscript is speculative and it NOT DESERVES ITS PUBLICATION.
7. It is clearly observed that AUTHOR have included some error bars in Figures reworked. However, these error bars elucidate or induce to another different interpretation of the results attained. This is neglected by Authors. For instance, in Figs. 7,10 and 13 when considering error bars, it is slightly induced that similar trends are reached. In some cases, no substantial differences are observed, which modifies completely those discussions and conclusions provided.
8. From those cited references, only 1 is published into METALS in the last two years. Was an up-to-date provided in order to include at least one or two recently published papers?
Author Response
Dear the Reviewer:
Thank you for your more comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Influence of Sinter Parameters on CO Emission in Iron Ore Sintering Process " (ID: metals-1770012). These comments all have great guiding significance for improving our paper. In previous papers, through the comments of the reviewer, we find that we lack consideration of reproducibility and error of the experiment. After carefully reading and thinking about the comments, we try our best to modify and supplement the problems existing in the manuscript, so that it meets the requirements of publication. Revised portion are marked in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the comments are as follows:
Point 1: The Abstract should be revised in order to unique verbal tense be used, e.g. simple present tense.
Response 1: In view of the tense problem in the abstract , we have modified it. Specific changes have been marked on page 1.
Point 2: In the Introduction, into the last paragraph, the NOVELTY should be clarified. It is rather and poorly described.
Response 2: In order to better reflect the novelty of this paper, in the last paragraph of the introduction, we have revised the novelty of the paper again on page 2.
Point 3: Throughout all section 2, the reproducibility of all experimentations should OBLIGATORY clarified.
Response 3: Due to the lack of description of the experimental process, reviewers and readers will doubt the reproducibility of the experiment. In section 2.2, the process of sintering cup experiment has been supplemented in detail.
Point 4: Majority parameters indicated into Table should be accompanied with their corresponding errors. At least those errors intrinsic to equipment and measurements carried out.
Response 4: The test results of Table 1 and Table 2 are from the Professional testing institutions. Errors in equipment inspection are generally not provided in inspection reports. The data of Table 3 is the parameters of the sintering cup equipment itself, which is provided by the manufacturer or set by the computer without considering the error. Table 4 shows the ratio scheme in the experiment, and there is no error. For the experiment described in this paper, we think the experimental errors are mainly in the flue gas detection, SI and TI detection process. For the error of flue gas detection, we find the error range when the instrument detects CO gas, and add in section 2.2.2 on page 4. For SI and TI detection error, we have analyzed the original data again and supplemented the necessary explanation for Figures 4, 7, 10 and 13.
Point 5: Also, throughout section 2, all dimension mentioned/described should OBLIGATORY be accompanied with their corresponding errors. Similarly, when the section 3 is proposed, all mentioned and discussed values should be accompanied with their errors.
Response 5: As the response from the fourth point, the detection of experimental materials in Table 1 and Table 2 generally does not provide error. The parameters of the sintering cup in Table 3 are provided by the manufacturer, and the parameters in the experimental process such as ignition temperature are controlled by computer, so there is no error. Besides, in sections 2 and 3, the errors in the detection of flue gas, SI and TI have been shown in the text and figures.
Point 6: Considering Figs.2 and 3, one of the attained results should be replotted in order to include OBLIGATORY it REPRODUCIBILITY. At least the DUPLICATE should be shown. Based on this, those other plots (similar), it can be stated that analogue reproducibility is applied. If this suggestion is not adopted, in my FRANK OPINION, the paper/manuscript is speculative and it NOT DESERVES ITS PUBLICATION.
Response 6: For the given raw material ratio conditions in this paper, it is regrettable that only one experiment was conducted in each group. But we have done similar experiments under different raw material conditions by changing the sinter parameters, and the results also have the same trend. Due to different raw material conditions, they are not listed in this paper. At the same time, after the sintering cup test, we verified it on the sintering machine in the steel plant, and the same results were obtained in the actual production process, which can provide some proof for the reproducibility of the experiment.
Point 7: It is clearly observed that AUTHOR have included some error bars in Figures reworked. However, these error bars elucidate or induce to another different interpretation of the results attained. This is neglected by Authors. For instance, in Figs. 7,10 and 13 when considering error bars, it is slightly induced that similar trends are reached. In some cases, no substantial differences are observed, which modifies completely those discussions and conclusions provided.
Response 7: In this paper, we have added an accurate description of the standard deviation and average value of SI and TI . We believe that the average obtained can better reflect the change trend and describe the influence of sintering parameters on TI and SI.
Point 8: From those cited references, only 1 is published into METALS in the last two years. Was an up-to-date provided in order to include at least one or two recently published papers?
Response 8: For the problem of references, we have searched the papers published into METALS in the last two years. In addition to the paper that has been quoted, we have not found more papers with strong relevance to this paper, so we have not modified the references.
Special thanks to you for your good comments .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors;
It is observed that majority comments and suggestions were adequately adopted. However, it is hardly suggested that at proof (final version), those sentence explaining reproducibility be included. This manly when Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10 and 13 are considered.
