Froth Images from Flotation Laboratory Test in Magotteaux Cell

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The data set contains images of froth bubbles with some image-based analysis and characterisation. It could be used by other researchers to verify the visual analysis. I think it is publishable. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for the editor’s and reviewers’ critical assessment and insightful comments concerning our manuscript "Froth images from flotation laboratory test in Magotteaux cell".

We have addressed all concerns and have made the necessary changes to the manuscript.

According to the evaluation report, you mentioned that the Introduction could be improved in order to facilitate the work done. Thus, we added two sentences pointing out the importance of flotation and its characterization (lines 24-27).

In addition, a complete revision of the text was carried out, which included further proofreading and spelling. 

Figure 2 was updated, so that the froth quality types established were consistent with those indicated in the text. A paragraph was added pointing out aspects of database scalability to the case of industrial flotation (lines 256-261). 

A “Conclusions” section was added (lines 262-272); and we included clarifying remarks on the classification experiments performed (lines 312-315; and lines 318-319). 

We hope that the editor and the reviewers find these changes satisfactory.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

A very well-written and interesting paper on a timely subject. I like the very systematic approach applied in the work and thereby also in paper structure.

The introduction to FF is a bit on the short side – perhaps a few more details on this very important industrial process as well as some key numbers on the process, just to emphasize the importance also of this work ??

I failed to find a direct section with a conclusion/summary of the results ??

Can the data derived from the image database and the experimental FF-cell be directly scaled up to industrial size equipment where a FF-tank may be 300+ m3 in size ?

In Table A1 and A2 I do not understand what No 1m2 respectively 3 refer to ??? That MUST be clarified.

Publish without further due.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for the editor’s and reviewers’ critical assessment and insightful comments concerning our manuscript "Froth images from flotation laboratory test in Magotteaux cell".

We have addressed all concerns and have made the necessary changes to the manuscript.

Reviewer comments:

• The introduction to FF is a bit on the short side – perhaps a few more details on this very important industrial process as well as some key numbers on the process, just to emphasize the importance also of this work ?

Response: Two sentences were added pointing out the importance of flotation and its characterization (lines 24-27).

• I failed to find a direct section with a conclusion/summary of the results ??

Response: We included a “Conclusions” section (lines 262-272).

• Can the data derived from the image database and the experimental FF-cell be directly scaled up to industrial size equipment where a FF-tank may be 300+ m3 in size ?

Response: A paragraph was added indicating aspects of the scalability of the database to the industrial flotation case (lines 256-261).

• In Table A1 and A2 I do not understand what No 1m2 respectively 3 refer to ??? That MUST be clarified.

Response: Sentences were written to clarify the meaning of the cases described in Tables A1 and A2 (lines 312-315, and lines 318-319).

In addition, a complete revision of the text was carried out, which included further proofreading and spelling. 

Finally, Figure 2 was updated so that the froth quality types established were consistent with those indicated in the text.

We hope that the editor and the reviewers find these changes satisfactory.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper looks good to me. It was well-written and easy to follow from a metallurgist perspective. And it is good to go. Several typos are found and should be revised before publishing. For examples,

line 137, “Maggoteaux” should be “Magotteaux”;

line 182, “reactives”, I suggest to use “reagents” or “surfactants”;

line 192, “Maggoteaux” should be “Magotteaux”;

line 235, “were reduces” should be “were reduced”?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for the editor’s and reviewers’ critical assessment and insightful comments concerning our manuscript "Froth images from flotation laboratory test in Magotteaux cell".

We have addressed all concerns and have made the necessary changes to the manuscript.

According to the evaluation report, you pointed out that there are different typos in the text that needed revision. Thus, we corrected each one of them. In addition, a complete revision of the text was carried out, which included further proofreading and spelling.

In addition, we included two sentences highlighting the importance of flotation and its characterization (lines 24-27).

Figure 2 was updated so that the froth quality types established were consistent with those indicated in the text. A paragraph was added pointing out aspects of scalability of the database to the case of industrial flotation (lines 256-261). 

A “Conclusions” section was added (lines 262-272). Finally, we included clarifying remarks on the classification experiments performed (lines 312-315, and lines 318-319). 

We hope that the editor and the reviewers find these changes satisfactory.

Best regards