7th January 2024

Dear Editor,
I have completed my review of the manuscript entitled "A Review of the Blast Fragmentation
Analysis Techniques Used in Surface Mines." The paper is well-structured and contributes
significantly to the field of mining operations. However, I recommend a few minor revisions
for clarity and completeness:
Explanation of Coefficients: The paper mentions the uniformity coefficient (Cu) and the
coefficient of gradation (Cg) as key metrics in the analysis. However, a detailed explanation of
what these coefficients are and how they are derived would be beneficial for readers. Providing
this information would enhance the understanding of how these coefficients contribute to the
assessment of blast fragmentation.
Expansion of Literature Review: Given that this is a review paper, it would be advantageous to
include a more extensive review of related literature. I suggest adding a table that summarizes
different methods used by various researchers in this field, along with their observational
outcomes. This addition would provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of
research and underscore the contribution of your paper in the context of existing literature.
Clarification in Table 2 - Blast Parameters: There appears to be some ambiguity in the data
presented in Table 2, particularly concerning blast parameters. The bench height is mentioned
as 10 meters, yet the depth of the hole is listed as 3 meters. This discrepancy needs clarification
or correction to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the data presented.
These minor revisions will enhance the clarity and depth of the paper, making it a more valuable
resource for professionals in the field. The methodology and insights provided are
commendable, and with these adjustments, the paper's impact and usefulness will be
significantly improved.

Best regards,