Dephosphorization in Double Slag Converter Steelmaking Process at Different Temperatures by Industrial Experiments
and Wenkui Yang 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A brief summary:
In the manuscript the study of the effect of the dephosphorization endpoint temperature on the dephosphorization at the low basicity slag in the relatively low temperature range of 1350~1450 °C is presented. The phase species and phase compositions of dephosphorization slag under the optimal dephosphorization ratio were studied by using XRD and SEM-EDS. Furthermore, the analysis of the effect of dephosphorization endpoint temperature on the oxygen activity at different reaction interfaces is carried out. In industrial experimental conditions the dephosphorization and re-phosphorization reactions present dynamic equilibrium at 1413 °C. In addition, experimental and thermodynamic calculation results show that, through double slag dephosphorization process, the optimal temperature range for intermediate deslagging is about 1400~1420 °C.
Broad comments:
The quality of the manuscript is good. The state-of-the-art was in depth analysed and discussed, by providing a significant number of previous studies carried out in the context of the study. In addition, the progress beyond the state-of-the-art is well explained. The experimental procedure is clearly described. However, more details on equipment for measurements and analyses should be provided. The results are well presented and well discussed. However, in order to improve the quality of the manuscript, some minor revisions should be provided by the authors. Corrections and suggestions are provided in the list of Specific comments.
Specific comments:
- Line 105: please remove the space between “in” and “dephosphorization”;
- Line 122: please add the space between “OG” and “(Oxygen converter Gas recovery)”;
- Line 123: please specify “T.Fe”;
- Line 364: please add a space between the full stop and “Namely”;
- Line 375: please add a space between “reaction” and “(J)”;
- Lines 381, 393, 385, 387: please add a space between punctuations and references cited in the brackets;
- Line 425: please put full stop after [16]. But, [16] maybe refers to Equation (16): please check;
- Table 7: the formula in the last row should be rewritten in a correct way as it appear to be confused;
- Line 606: please put the full stop after [18, 44-45];
- Line 612: please put the full stop after [18].
Author Response
Response to Reviewer#1' Comments
Point 1: Line 105.
Please remove the space between “in” and “dephosphorization”.
Response 1: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have removed the space between “in” and “dephosphorization” on line 105 in page 3.
Point 2: Line 122.
Please add the space between “OG” and “(Oxygen converter Gas recovery)”.
Response 2: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have added the space between “OG” and “(Oxygen converter Gas recovery)” on line 122 in page 3.
Point 3: Line 123.
Please specify “T.Fe”.
Response 3: Thank you and accept your suggestion. “T. Fe” is the total content of iron element in slag, (mass%). In our revised manuscript, we have specified “T.Fe” on line 124~125 in page 3.
Point 4: Line 364.
Please add a space between the full stop and “Namely”.
Response 4: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have added a space between the full stop and “Namely” on line 365 in page 11.
Point 5: Line 375.
Please add a space between “reaction” and “(J)”.
Response 5: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have added a space between “reaction” and “(J)” on line 376 in page 12.
Point 6: Lines 381, 393, 385, 387.
Please add a space between punctuations and references cited in the brackets.
Response 6: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have added a space between punctuations and references cited in the brackets on line 382, 384, 386, 388 in page 12.
Point 7: Line 425.
Please put full stop after [16]. But, [16] maybe refers to Equation (16): please check.
Response 7: Thank you and accept your suggestion. [16] refers to reference [16]. In our revised manuscript, we have put full stop after [16] on line 426 in page 13.
Point 8: Table 7.
The formula in the last row should be rewritten in a correct way as it appear to be confused.
Response 8: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have rewritten the formula in a correct way in Table 7 in page 19.
Point 9: Line 606.
Please put the full stop after [18, 44-45].
Response 9: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have put the full stop after [18, 44-45] on line 608 in page 21.
Point 10: Line 612.
Please put the full stop after [18].
Response 10: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have put the full stop after [18] on line 614 in page 21.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The study of the double slag convertor steelmaking in this lower temperature range of 1350o to 1450oC is excellent. I agree there is limited process metallurgy data and you nicely covered the topic.
Figure 2 and Table 4 ate good contributions and substantiation for your conclusions.
Your recommendation of dephosphorization at a lower temperature is THE SIGNIFICANT FINDING that I takeaway as an experienced industrial and research steelmaker. This finding is of global interest!!
You assumed that all iron oxides in the slag exist in the form of FeO in this research which is totally acceptable. However, in future work, I encourage analysis of other forms of FeO.
Note that the spacing lines 668-670 and the 674-676 are double instead of single lines.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer#2' Comments
Thank you very much for your positive comments on our manuscript. This greatly encourages us to continue our researches on the double slag converter steelmaking process.
Point 1: You assumed that all iron oxides in the slag exist in the form of FeO in this research which is totally acceptable. However, in future work, I encourage analysis of other forms of FeO.
Response 1: Thank you and accept your comment. We would like to analyze the other forms of FeO in our future work.
Point 2: Note that the spacing lines 668-670 and the 674-676 are double instead of single lines.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. Actually, the spacing lines 668-670 and the 674-676 are all the single lines. But owing to the inserted symbols with subscript or superscript, they appear to be the double lines.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
An interesting and comprehensive paper on a very topical subject. the paper is well structured and presented, and the analysis and discussion seem to be supported by experimental evidence. There needs to be an improvement to the quality of the written English, especially in the introduction and methodology section and I have a few minor requests
Line 122 - please define T.Fe
Line 124 - define "proper amounts"
There are mistakes within the figures too
Fig 7 - soild should be solid
Fig 8 and 9 - predicitive should be predictive
Table 7 - is there a mistake in the formula for Zhang ?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer#3' Comments
Point 1: Line 122.
Please define T.Fe.
Response 1: Thank you and accept your suggestion. “T. Fe” is the total content of iron element in slag, (mass%). In our revised manuscript, we have defined “T.Fe” on line 124~125 in page 3.
Point 2: Line 124.
Define "proper amounts".
Response 2: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have defined “proper amounts” on line 125~126 in page 3. “Proper amounts” usually refers to 20 mass% of iron oxide scale, 13 mass% of lime and 2 mass% of binder and 65 mass% of OG mud.
Point 3: Fig.7.
Soild should be solid.
Response 3: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have revised “Soild” into “Solid” in Figure 7 in page 10.
Point 4: Fig 8 and 9.
Predicitive should be predictive.
Response 4: Thank you and accept your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we have revised “Predicitive” into “Predictive” in figure 8 and figure 9 in page 10.
Point 5: Table 7.
Is there a mistake in the formula for Zhang ?
Response 5: Thank you and accept your suggestion. We have rewritten the last row in Zhang’s formula in a correct way. In our revised manuscript, we have revised in Table 7 in page 10.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
