Next Article in Journal
Fuel Economy Energy Management of Electric Vehicles Using Harris Hawks Optimization
Next Article in Special Issue
Design and Simulation Test of the Control System for the Automatic Unloading and Replenishment of Baskets of the 4UM-120D Electric Leafy Vegetable Harvester
Previous Article in Journal
Developing Place-Based Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of Taipei City’s Jiuzhuang Community Garden
Previous Article in Special Issue
Measurement and Analysis of the Influence Factors of Tractor Tire Contact Area Based on a Multiple Linear Regression Equation
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Sustainable Way to Determine the Water Content in Torreya grandis Kernels Based on Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Sustainability 2023, 15(16), 12423; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612423
by Jiankai Xiang 1,2, Yu Huang 1, Shihao Guan 1, Yuqian Shang 3, Liwei Bao 1, Xiaojie Yan 1, Muhammad Hassan 4, Lijun Xu 1,2,* and Chao Zhao 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4:
Reviewer 5:
Sustainability 2023, 15(16), 12423; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612423
Submission received: 3 June 2023 / Revised: 9 August 2023 / Accepted: 11 August 2023 / Published: 16 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Technology in Agricultural Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors


The present manuscript describes a sustainable way to determine the water content in Torreya grandis kernels based on near-infrared spectroscopy. It appears interesting and well-written. However, there are some English errors that should be corrected, find them in the attached file (PDF reader), also, the tables should be well presented. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The manuscript is well-written, however, there are some errors that should be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments are in the paper.

New models can be achieved with the proposed region, in the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English needs to be improved, I have done some work on it but it needs to be improved.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have employed the near infrared spectra for effective evaluation of moisture content in the Torreya Grandis Kernels. The article is written well but there are no clear indication for the novelty of this study. Since many authors have utilized the near infrared spectra as a non-destructive method for moisture content evaluation of the samples. In fact, there are commercial equipment's available in the market with this technology to evaluate the moisture content. So it is not clearly explained by the authors on novelty of this study. 

1. Authors have to explain in what way their study is unique and contributes to the state of art development in the field?

2. How far the results obtained by the authors are beneficial to further the moisture content analysis of food/grain samples. Especially when there are Near infrared based commercial equipments already available in the market.

3. Is this method economically viable for the end users to use? When we talk about sustainable methods, cost of the analysis should also be considered. Moisture content analysis by hot air oven method has been the economically viable method for farmers and end users. Authors should explain how their study can ease the moisture analysis for the end users in economically sustainable way.

Manuscript has to be edited carefully, and there are some spelling mistakes noted in table and figure captions. Authors need to carefully edit the manuscript for typo mistakes.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript uses a portable near-infrared spectrometer to construct a moisture model for T. grandis kernels, and the paper is the first of its kind, albeit not technically original, to be used for nondestructive moisture detection in T. grandis kernels. There are several details that need to be revised as follows:

1. Is the predicted sample an independent sample set? Should the authors clarify their sources in the manuscript? Are they from the 144 samples described in the text. External predictions should be implemented using independent samples.

2. Regarding the identification of outlier samples, i.e., the method of  Mahalanobis distance method and concentration residual method, are well known methods. Therefore, it is not necessary to give specific principles and formulas in the methodology section of the manuscript; giving the appropriate references is sufficient.

3. Due to the large differences in concentration ranges and standard deviations of the analyzed objects, it is not appropriate to use RMSECV or RMSEP for model comparison, and it is recommended to use RPD for evaluation, which is the SD ratio on RMSEP.

English language is better, with attention to coherent details.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The present article entitled "A Sustainable Way to Determine the Water Content in Torreya Grandis Kernels Based on Near-infrared Spectroscopy" based on a nice them. Authors have  discuss  about near-infrared spectroscopy , which is  feasible for rapid nondestructive detection of water content in T. grandis kernels. As detection  of water content  is a need  for  sustainable agriculture.  

The article is well designed and well written. Article can be accepted in the present form.

 

 

The present article entitled "A Sustainable Way to Determine the Water Content in Torreya Grandis Kernels Based on Near-infrared Spectroscopy" based on a nice them. Authors have  discuss  about near-infrared spectroscopy , which is  feasible for rapid nondestructive detection of water content in T. grandis kernels. As detection  of water content  is a need  for  sustainable agriculture.  

The article is well designed and well written. Article can be accepted in the present form.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is better after revisions.

The manuscript is well written. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments are in the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments are in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments given by the reviewer, thus the manuscript may be considered for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop