Next Article in Journal
A Multi-Attention Approach Using BERT and Stacked Bidirectional LSTM for Improved Dialogue State Tracking
Previous Article in Journal
Automatic Detection of Multilevel Communities: Scalable, Selective and Resolution-Limit-Free
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/app13031771
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Permeability Evolution of Sandstones with Different Pore Structures under High Confining Pressures, High Pore Water Pressures and High Temperatures

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(3), 1771; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031771
by Yanzhi Li 1,2, Yue Wu 1,2, Weiguo Qiao 1,2,*, Shuai Zhang 3 and Xungang Li 1
Reviewer 1:
Anna Vozárová
Reviewer 2:
Livio Santos
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(3), 1771; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031771
Submission received: 1 January 2023 / Revised: 20 January 2023 / Accepted: 23 January 2023 / Published: 30 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Earth Sciences)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have the following comments:

1. There are several terminological inaccuracies in the text, e.g. "filling" is imprecise term, "matrix" is used. In the petrographic description of sandstones, a distinction must be made between matrix and cement. It is also necessary to specify the mineralogical type of cement, calcite or silicate. It is very important from the point of permeability as a whole.

2. I reccomend the explaining the term "permeability ratio" in more detail in the text and especially its meaning for the given research.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1’s comments

We are very grateful to you for your valuable suggestions on revising the manuscript. Our replies are detailed below: (Note the underlined word, which indicates the position of the modified part in the manuscript.)

Point 1- There are several formatting issues regarding spacing between words, at least in the copy received by this reviewer..

Reply: All typos have been revised in the newly submitted manuscript (see the new manuscript submitted).

Point 2- In the abstract, this reviewer suggests briefly introducing the different subcategories of sandstone and their differences.

Reply: The different subcategories of sandstone and their differences have been briefly introduced in the abstract, and the title has also been revised to make it more consistent with the abstract and the content of this paper; that is, this paper emphasizes that the research object is different types of sandstone. (see the Abstract and Title).

Point 3- The discussion section provides a good overview of the practical implication of the results. The authors should also discuss if the results are in accordance with the works mentioned in the literature review.

Reply: The similarities and differences between the results of this study and the works of previous researchers mentioned in the literature review have been added to the discussion section (see the Section 4,Discussion, lines 741-783).

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting work about the permeability evolution of sandstones with significant implications for deep mining. The methods and procedures are very clear to follow, with the assumptions thoroughly defined, and the results were found to be educational. This reviewer has only a few suggestions and recommendations before publication.

  1. There are several formatting issues regarding spacing between words, at least in the copy received by this reviewer.
  2. In the abstract, this reviewer suggests briefly introducing the different subcategories of sandstone and their differences.
  3. The discussion section provides a good overview of the practical implication of the results. The authors should also discuss if the results are in accordance with the works mentioned in the literature review.

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2’s comments

We are very grateful to you for your valuable suggestions on revising the manuscript. Our replies are detailed below: (Note the underlined word, which indicates the position of the modified part in the manuscript.)

Point 1- There are several terminological inaccuracies in the text, e.g. "filling" is imprecise term, "matrix" is used. In the petrographic description of sandstones, a distinction must be made between matrix and cement. It is also necessary to specify the mineralogical type of cement, calcite or silicate. It is very important from the point of view of permeability as a whole.

Reply: According to the identification reports of casting thin sections in this study, we distinguished matrix and cement, specified the mineralogical type of cement, and counted the content of matrix and content of different mineralogical types of cement (see subsection 2.2, lines 197-198).

Point 2- I recommend the explaining the term "permeability ratio" in more detail in the text and especially its meaning for the given research.

Reply: The term "permeability ratio" has been explained in more detail in this revision, and its meaning for the given research has been specified (see subsubsection 3.1.1, lines 432-439).

Back to TopTop