Design and Test of the Structure of Extractor Negative Pressure Zone of Sugarcane Chopper Harvester

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

congratulations for your work! Very well structured and written.

A few tiny corrections to be done.

1.The legends of Figures 7 and 8 should be bigger.

2. Figure 9: include units.

3. Check 3.3.1. title. It is twice mentioned.

4. The same for Figure 12.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript “Design and test of the structure of extractor negative pressure zone of sugarcane chopper harvester”

 

This manuscript will be interesting for scientists, who are interested in studying the problem of the high trash content and loss rate of mechanized sugarcane harvesting. Also, these scientific results will have practical application. In order to improve the manuscript, I suggest the following corrections:

1. The in-text quotes are formatted incorrectly, such as “Viator, white, and Ma Shaochun's team [3-6] concluded that…”. It is recommended to make them as follows: Viator et al. (2007), Whiteing et al. [4], Wang et al. [5], Xing et al. [6] …

2. In the last paragraph on the first page, sentences must be separated by a period, not a semicolon. 

3. The in-text quotes, such as “Xing Haonan et al. [2,14-16] …”, is formatted incorrectly. Because in the references [2, 14], the first author Xing has the initials H. M. and in the references [15, 16] the first author Xing has the initials H. N. It is recommended to make them as follows: Xing et al. [2], Xing et al. [14], Xing et al. [15], Xing et al. [16].

4. Captions on Fig. 11a and Fig. 11b must be increased.

5. The article states: “When the feed rate was 1.5 kg/s and the fan speed was 1100 r/min, the trash content of the optimal extractor decreased by 0.8%” (p. 8-9). It is not clear from the text, compared to what trash content of the optimal extractor decreased by 0.8%. Also, the article states: “When the feed rate was 7.5 kg/s, the trash content of optimal extractor decreased by 2.5% (Figure. 12a)” (p. 9). Similarly, it is necessary to indicate compared to what the reduction of trash content took place. The same clarifications must be made in all explanations to Fig. 12.

6. The keyword “negative structure” should be replaced or changed to “negative pressure structure”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc