Simulation Analysis and Test of Pneumatic Distribution Fertilizer Discharge System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a high-quality mechanical engineering (fluid mechanics) study. The paper is not directly in the scope (subject areas) of the Agronomy Journal. It is primarily intended for mechanical engineering (MSc) graduates. There is no doubt that it also provides some operational information, but the article primarily provides methodological information for development engineers.
The data provided in the abstract are correct.
The purpose of the study should be stated more clearly in the introduction. It seems to the reviewer that the goal here is to develop scientific modeling. This findings are based on the fact that the work can form the basis of the coupling Artificial Neutral Networks (ANNs) and CFD method, through which the “Pneumatic Distribution Fertilizer Discharge System” can operate completely autonomously, continuously adapting to soil unevenness, and with the expectations of the different manager zones and atmospheric conditions.
It is natural that the authors want to comply with precision technology. At the same time, there are two important requirements here: 1. Accurate application of fertilizer corresponding to the set value on a unit surface; 2. At the borders of the manager zones, the change of the applied quantity must also be accurate. The latter is the bigger challenge.
The long-term goal is to design a fertilizer spreader that can not only change the applied amount, but also the nitrogen potassium phosphorus mass ratio autonomously according to the agronomic expectations of the manager zones.
2. Materials and methods
General comments
The method and the results are often mixed up!
The statistical analyses should also have been carried out for field experiments, because the paper would then better meet the requirements and scope of the Agronomy with information related to the operation.
The schematic diagram of the experimental equipment and the description of its operation are correct. Urea particle related parameters contain the necessary parameters (μ=1.82×10~5 Pa•s= μ=1.82×10-5 Pa•s)
Internal structure diagrams of distributors are clear.
Sections I-I and II-II must be drawn in Figure 3. The calculated result is also displayed here.
The physical drawing of test bench is a photo.
The simulation test analysis should be at the start of the chapter 3. Results and Discussion.
Chapter 3. Results and discussion is high-quality work that also includes operational consequences. It does a good job of comparing the results of the research work with the experiences reported in the literature.
Chapter 4. The Conclusion could be more detailed. In its current form, it does not reflect the high quality of the research work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Try to use agronomy template
This paper have a lot of mismatch
Line OBS
8 Abstract must be a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum
43 Missing space between "application" and "[8]"
49-50 First time when you use an abbreviation you must give all description "Discrete Element Method (DEM), Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)"
81 Missing space before "3" and "4"
82 Missing space before "6" and "8" (in my PDF line 82 are in page 3 and line 82 are in page 2, try to move line in the same line with Figure 1)
89 Remove extra line
94 Missing dot "." at the end of text (after "[14]")
95 Missing space before table 1
110 Missing dot "." (replace the character "。" with ".")
111-113 If you can put all the table in the same page will be great. in table "107" 7 doesn’t look like superscript
114 Missing space between table 2 and text from line 114 (use template indication)
116 Correct formulae aerodynamic viscosity μ=1.82×10~5 Pa•s
125 Missing space between "pipe." and "Under"
129 Equation 2 - Use the same font and font size in all equation
152 Must be in the same page with equation 4
158 Missing space between "angle" and "θ=90°"
161 Text doesn’t respect template
162 Missing space before table 3
172 Isn't correct [20]-[21] correct to [20-21] or to [20,21]
175 Fig. 2A correct to Figure 2(a)
182 Try to use some more contrast if is possible / Figure.2 correct to Figure 2.
183-184 Try to move in the same page with figure and figure description. Also use the same font size (a looks smaller than b and c)
186 ζ = zi (zeta)
ξ = xi (Xi) Equation 5 ???!!!
187 Something goes wrong N/M looks upper
194 Missing some space after line
203 After this line move your figure
204 Remove extra line
215 Missing space after "Q + q,"
216 Use comma "pⅠ、pⅡ,"
218-219 Try to move in the same page with equation 7
231 and 232 are extra line try to remove
238 and 239 are extra line try to remove
244 and 245 are extra line try to remove
248 and 249 are extra line try to remove
253 and 254 are extra line try to remove
259 and 260 are extra line try to remove
263, 264 and 265 are extra line try to remove
In equation 15 and 16 there is a confusion between Alpha and Beta
270 Remove "His" before "Where...."
274 Give some more explication for table 4.
275 Missing some space before this line
273-275 Try to move in same page with Table 4
276 Missing figure 4 text explication
278 Missing space after
284-295 Remove extra space
296 "Where, X is the amount of fertilizer discharged each time, g; n is the number of measurements." What did you mean with "g"
Also give more explication for equations 17-19
298 This line is extra space you must remove
299 Missing space before text (template)
308 "per mu" what is "mu"
309 Correct "(maximum (maximum urea flow"
311 Missing space before text - also missing explication text for table 5
In table 5 use comma (,) not symbol "、"
315 From here to the end text must be JUSTIFY
322 Correct "Realizable" to "realizable"
323 Correct "Velocity" to "velocity"
328-331 Remove extra lines
332 Must be in the same page with equation 20
338-340 Remove extra line
341 Missing explication text for table 6
356 Must be in the same page with figure 5 - also must be after image not before - missing explication text for figure 5
373 I think is new paragraph here
378 This text after image not before
380 This text after image not before
382-393 Remove extra line
394 Why b is bolded
Missing explication for figure 7 (also explication for 7 (a) and 7(b))
401 Correct this "[19[22][23]." must be "[19,22,23]."
424 This text after image not before
438 This text after image not before
Missing explication for figure 8 and 9
455 More explication text
457 Missing some space before
472 Missing explication text for table 9 and 10
483 Some space before
484 Some space before
485 Some space before
486 Some space before
501 Conclusion are too short
543 References doesn’t respect TEMPLATE
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The problem of pneumatic conveying of solid materials and their uniform distribution through various outlets is a major problem that affects many agricultural machines such as seeders and fertilizer spreaders, which still does not achieve good practical solutions.
In this work, the behavior of a distributor design is analyzed both by numerical modeling and with a laboratory test. The approach is very interesting, but to be fully valid it requires including some details that have not been taken into account, or at least not detailed in the article, such as:
1) what system is used to control the dose of fertilizer that is injected into the blower tube
2) Nothing is said about the pipes that have to transfer the fertilizer from the distributor ring to the different outlets, neither in the theoretical model nor in the laboratory model.
Without this information, the usefulness of the work is very limited.
Below are some errata detected and some comments in particular.
line 31. It says '...fertilizer used in the past compared to 1980 [2]'. Please clarify the term 'past', it is very imprecise'
bibliography, all the references are from China, but I'm sure that there are a lot of literature in English on this type of machines that has not been consulted.
Table 1, 1st. parameter, what unit is 'mu' in kg/mu? Idem lines 146, 308, 321.
line 117, it says '...calculated that its free...', it should say '...calculated that the free...'
Table 3 and line 166, what 'R' is in the expression 'R/D'?
line 172, En the phrase '...[21]. It was found...', the point must be replaced by a comma ','
So the result will be: '... .[21], it was found...'
lines 187 to 192, which refer to formula (5), the meaning of some abbreviations is missing, unclear, or incomplete. A drawing with the abbreviations would facilitate their understanding.
lines 214 to 217, the writing must be improved. Some drawings must be included to a better description of the sections.
line, 309, the text '(maximum) is repeated.
Section 2.3.1. how the fertilizer application rate is controlled? The fertilizer particles where characterized (mass, size distribution, shape...?
Table 5. The last line is repeated.
line 322. Table 3? I suppose it is Table 6.
line 322. It says 'k − ε，Realizable model in Fluent.' this sentence is incomplete
line 345. I do not understand this sentence well, it says '...pipe is clogged and stable..' what do you consider 'clogged' and what 'stable'?
lines 394 and 395, this text is part of Figure 7 caption.
Section 3.3. A big problem with this type of distributor is to achieve a homogeneous dosage between the outlet tubes. Table 7 provides mean values for the entire set and the coefficient of variation between rows, but the data for each row is not shown. Nor has it been explained how the different values provided in this table have been measured, for example, in the 'Average fertilizer application rate / (g)' column, the mass values shown refer to the sum of all the fertilizer collected for each outlet pipe for a time x? Time, which by the way, I can't find anywhere.
line 481. It says '...by spss', please, clarify.
Section 3.3.1. In this section some statistical analysis appears, but there is not a detailed explanation of the methodololy used (this should be included in the M&M section). For a better understanding, in tables 8, 9 and 10, instead of generic terms (group, in the group...) please put the varables and factor that are being compared.
line 498, it says 'fertilizer application efficiency' I suppose you wish to say 'fertilizer dosage'
One last comment, in this work nothing is said about the outlet tubes that go to the different furrows, I suppose that their shape, length, etc., will influence the resistance of the air, and therefore of the fertilizer that circulates through they. Actually, to obtain valid practical conclusions, this part must be included both in the modeling and in the laboratory tests.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
You didn't correct any of my observation.
Your cover latter are the paper without any observation
Author Response
please see the attached files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have taken into consideration some of the reviewer's comments, others have been omitted.
In no case, the authors justify the modifications or omissions.
Some of the reviewer's comments may be debatable, and perhaps the authors have a different vision of the problem than the reviewer, but for this there is a reasoned debate between authors and reviewers, but this debate has not been used.
Some typographical errors still exist and new ones have been introduced, for example, the editing of equations (3), (4) and (5), among others, needs to be improved.
In the 'Conclusions' section, the first sentence should be better written.
Author Response
please see the attached files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
