Reutilization Prospects of Diamond Clay Tailings at the Lomonosov Mine, Northwestern Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest the following alterations:

• Pg.1 – Line 10 – I think cubic tons should be replaced by cubic meters. The cubic ton is a measure of volume. It is no longer used in the United Kingdom but still has a residual usage in the USA. 1 cubic ton (40 cubic feet) = 1.133 cubic metres so the total amount of stored waste rock is 13,6 cubic meters.
• Pg.1 – Line 30 – replace “modern and future” by “present and future”.
• Pg.2 – Line 53 – although the expression “ore depots” is correct, it is seldom used. I suggest that it could be replaced by “ore stockpiles”;
• Pg.2 – Line 55 – suggestion: replace “wet self-grinding mills” by “wet autogenous mills”.
• Pg.2 – Line 74 – replace “indigenous peoples” by “indigenous people”.
• Pg.3 line 94 – use three instead of 3.
• Pg.5 line 208 – use five instead of 5.

Author Response

• I suggest the following alterations

Thank you for your assessment of the manuscript and your constructive suggestions!

• 1 – Line 10 – I think cubic tons should be replaced by cubic meters. The cubic ton is a measure of volume. It is no longer used in the United Kingdom but still has a residual usage in the USA. 1 cubic ton (40 cubic feet) = 1.133 cubic metres so the total amount of stored waste rock is 13,6 cubic meters.

Answer: thank you, we have replaced the cubic tons by cubic meters (l. 10)

• 1 – Line 30 – replace “modern and future” by “present and future”.

Answer: thank you, we have replaced “modern and future” by “present and future” (l. 30)

• 2 – Line 53 – although the expression “ore depots” is correct, it is seldom used. I suggest that it could be replaced by “ore stockpiles”;

Answer: thank you, we have replaced “ore depots” by “ore stockpiles” (l. 129)

• 2 – Line 55 – suggestion: replace “wet self-grinding mills” by “wet autogenous mills”.

Answer: thank you, we have replaced “wet self-grinding mills” by “wet autogenous mills” (l. 132)

• 2 – Line 74 – replace “indigenous peoples” by “indigenous people”.

Answer: thank you, we have replaced “indigenous peoples” by “indigenous people” (l. 169)

• 3 line 94 – use three instead of 3 and Pg.5 line 208 – use five instead of 5.

Answer: thank you, we have replaced the numbers with words (l. 212 and l. 287)

 

Thank you again for the time you put in assessing our paper draft and giving your very helpful suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript needs to be better organised, because it is rather chaotic.  The title is not very consistent with the text of the manuscript, because the manuscript is more about analytical measurements of waste properties to assess their usefulness for recovery than “Reutilization”. The introduction does not provide sufficient background and it is not clear enough what is known already and what is the purpose of the research described in the manuscript. The text in individual chapters needs to be adjusted to the chapters titles. At the moment introduction, methods and results are mixed up under the chapter “Results and discussion”. Conclusions are not really conclusions, the chapter is more like an abstract than conclusions.

Moreover, it would be beneficial if the manuscript had a proper (or even short ) description of technological processes in which the wastes are generated, because the waste parameters is usually dependent on the processes in which it is generated.

Line: 220-221 Ceramic and pressed wall panels can be  produced from various types of mineral raw materials, e.g., gypsum or asbestos or clays. Do authors really mean production of wall panels from asbestos? The use of asbestos has been banned for many years, for example in European Union or USA. Are the authors aware of this fact? What are the law regulations in Russia regarding the use of asbestos? Are really asbestos allowed?

Author Response

• The manuscript needs to be better organised, because it is rather chaotic.  

Thank you for your evaluation of our manuscript and your constructive suggestions. We have reorganized the text.

• The title is not very consistent with the text of the manuscript, because the manuscript is more about analytical measurements of waste properties to assess their usefulness for recovery than “Reutilization”.

Answer: Thank you for the remark. The research really shows the future usefulness for recovery, not the actual application of waste. So we have made the title more consistent with the text: “Reutilization Prospects of Diamond Clay Tailings at the Lomonosov Mine, Northwestern Russia”.

• The introduction does not provide sufficient background and it is not clear enough what is known already and what is the purpose of the research described in the manuscript.

Answer: Thank you for the advice. We have extended the introduction and added the background data as well as pointed out at the research purpose (l. 39-113)

• The text in individual chapters needs to be adjusted to the chapters titles. At the moment introduction, methods and results are mixed up under the chapter “Results and discussion”.

Answer: Thank you for the comment. The text is now adjusted to titles and a sub-chapter “2.1. Mining and processing plant” is added (l. 144-157; 158-197; 242-249).

• Conclusions are not really conclusions, the chapter is more like an abstract than conclusions.

Answer: Your comments are completely true. The conclusions are now rewritten.

• Moreover, it would be beneficial if the manuscript had a proper (or even short ) description of technological processes in which the wastes are generated, because the waste parameters is usually dependent on the processes in which it is generated.

Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We have extended the description of ore processing (l. 130-143)

• Line: 220-221 Ceramic and pressed wall panels can be  produced from various types of mineral raw materials, e.g., gypsum or asbestos or clays. Do authors really mean production of wall panels from asbestos? The use of asbestos has been banned for many years, for example in European Union or USA. Are the authors aware of this fact? What are the law regulations in Russia regarding the use of asbestos? Are really asbestos allowed?

Answer: We fully understand the environmental and health risks of asbestos application and by no means support it. In Russia, however, the law regulations regarding the use of asbestos allow this. The country remains one of the key asbestos producers worldwide (please refer to the data by the USGS https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-asbestos.pdf and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists https://www.icij.org/investigations/dangers-dust/russia-worlds-asbestos-behemoth); the mineral is still used in building material manufacturing. So it has been initially mentioned in the manuscript just as a statement of the fact. We particularly note that this practice is hazardous and it opposes the very idea of adding Portland cement as a binding component of soft and fluid clays. To eliminate ambiguity, gypsum and clays are now mentioned as mineral raw materials for wall panels (l. 313)

 

We thank you once more for the time you put in going through our work and look forward to meeting your expectations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Conclusions lines 463 - 465: Do you really mean disposal? Disposal means the waste is useless for example landfilling, recovery means waste could be useful for something. Waste management is general and includes everything: disposal, recovery and recycling. So my question is: what do you mean here?

Besides I suggest first mentioning the three  ways of managing the saponite clays and then discussing their sustainability.

Lines 473 - 475: This fact is of high importance for the use of clay pulp as a neutralizing agent, as waste 
reprocessing kills two birds with one stone (in fact, it saves birds by decreasing the fugitive dust emission).   This is not comprehensive at all.

Conclusions should be very consistent with previous chapters of the manuscript and at the same time well structured and easy to understand.

Author Response

• aConclusions should be very consistent with previous chapters of the manuscript and at the same time well structured and easy to understand.

Answer: We wish to thank you for your helpful comments in the first and second rounds of review. Your comments provided valuable insights to improve the manuscript as a whole, and the conclusions in particular. We have amended the text and added a short summary (l. 482-486)

• Conclusions lines 463 - 465: Do you really mean disposal? Disposal means the waste is useless for example landfilling, recovery means waste could be useful for something. Waste management is general and includes everything: disposal, recovery and recycling. So my question is: what do you mean here?

Answer: Thank you for the detailed remark. We are sorry for the bad phrasing. You are absolutely right, as the intended application of saponite implies its usefulness. The sentence is now rewritten (l. 464-468).

• Besides I suggest first mentioning the three ways of managing the saponite clays and then discussing their sustainability.

Answer: Thank you for the suggestion, we have done this (l. 464-466).

• Lines 473 - 475: This fact is of high importance for the use of clay pulp as a neutralizing agent, as waste reprocessing kills two birds with one stone (in fact, it saves birds by decreasing the fugitive dust emission).   This is not comprehensive at all.

Answer: Thank you for the remark. The phrase is now restructured (l. 475-477).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx