Design of and Experimental Study on Drying Equipment for Fritillaria ussuriensis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe process of drying food products is one of the basic methods of preserving food (including herbs). The authors address this topic in their manuscript, however, some aspects should be refined, namely:
1. Fig. 2 - the y-axis should be water ratio MR or moisture content.
1.1. Drying curves should be described by equations with statistical analysis.
2. Initial water content should be measured using the drying-weighing method under specific conditions.
3. The color of the dried product should be described by numerical values.
4. It would be worth carrying out the drying process in a solar dryer, which would significantly enrich this manuscript.
Author Response
- Fig. 2 - the y-axis should be water ratio MR or moisture content.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I accept the suggestion. Since this part of the research content needs further in-depth exploration, and this paper mainly focuses on the hot-air drying method to carry out the research, the main research content is about the design of the drying device and the determination of the optimal process parameters. Therefore, the research content on the influence of different drying methods was deleted, but the three-factor three-level test and surface response analysis were added to the process parameter optimization part of the hot-air drying method, as shown in Section 4.4.
1.1. Drying curves should be described by equations with statistical analysis.
Response 1.1: Thank you for pointing this out. I accept the suggestion. Five common thin-layer mathematical drying models and a cubic polynomial model, totaling six models, are selected to fit the hot-air drying test data under different temperature conditions and explore the drying process.
- Initial water content should be measured using the drying-weighing method under specific conditions.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I accept the suggestion. Five common thin-layer mathematical drying models and a cubic polynomial model, totaling six models, are selected to fit the hot-air drying test data under different temperature conditions and explore the drying process.
- The color of the dried product should be described by numerical values.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I accept the suggestion. Since this part of the research content needs further in-depth exploration, and this paper mainly focuses on the hot-air drying method for research, the main research contents are the design of the drying device and the determination of the optimal process parameters. Therefore, the research content on the influence of different drying methods was deleted, but the three-factor three-level test and response surface analysis were added to the process parameter optimization part of the hot-air drying method, as detailed in Section 4.4.
- It would be worth carrying out the drying process in a solar dryer, which would significantly enrich this manuscript.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I accept the suggestion. The solar drying method will be supplemented in subsequent research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
In my opinion, this article is very interesting but requires a few key corrections. In my opinion, both the methodology and the research part require systematization and improvement.
Below are detailed comments
Line 56: You should better justify the validity of your research. Is there anything innovative in it? Then you should formulate the scientific goal of your research. This is missing here.
Line 71: Make a reference to the next chapter. Why is it important to show it here. Line 102: I admit that the conclusions from the preliminary research look unnatural in this place for a scientific article. Maybe it would be better to write "justification of the research conducted"?
Line 175: Write what exactly you do in the methodology. I have to admit that it is written a bit incomprehensibly.
Line 185. Then chapter 3.2 is titled "principle of operation". In this case, conducting the research fits better - only it is not here.
In my opinion, you should think about arranging the methodology so that it is clear. Each study should be reproducible based on the research methodology.
Line 418: In my opinion, all these descriptions should be earlier. The research device should be precisely characterized. Then you should precisely describe the course of research/simulation, etc. at the end, any research should be presented.
Line 420: Results and discussion - this part is described very superficially. It needs to be supplemented.
Figure 12: Change the descriptions on the graphs to English.
Line 448: Discussion of results: this part is also very superficial. There are no references to literature.
Line 468: Only selected sentences are typical conclusions. In my opinion, this part should also be improved. I propose describing more of the prospects of your research. What will your prototype contribute to science/industry, etc.
Author Response
Line 56: You should better justify the validity of your research. Is there anything innovative in it? Then you should formulate the scientific goal of your research. This is missing here.
Response Line 56:: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions and added the research purpose and research significance to the introduction section.
Line 71: Make a reference to the next chapter. Why is it important to show it here. Line 102: I admit that the conclusions from the preliminary research look unnatural in this place for a scientific article. Maybe it would be better to write "justification of the research conducted"?
Response Line 71:: Thank you for pointing this out. I have taken the suggestions on board. To ensure the logical coherence of the article, I have readjusted its structure and presented this section in a more concise manner.
Line 175: Write what exactly you do in the methodology. I have to admit that it is written a bit incomprehensibly.
Response Line 175: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions and selected an appropriate heating and drying method based on the references.
Line 185. Then chapter 3.2 is titled "principle of operation". In this case, conducting the research fits better - only it is not here. In my opinion, you should think about arranging the methodology so that it is clear. Each study should be reproducible based on the research methodology.
Response Line 185: Thank you for pointing this out. I have taken the suggestions on board and revised the title to "Research Ideas and Methods".
Line 418: In my opinion, all these descriptions should be earlier. The research device should be precisely characterized. Then you should precisely describe the course of research/simulation, etc. at the end, any research should be presented.
Response Line 418: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions and supplemented the origin of specific parameters in the simulation process and the method for establishing the optimal process parameters.
Line 420: Results and discussion - this part is described very superficially. It needs to be supplemented.
Response Line 420: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions and supplemented the conclusion.
Figure 12: Change the descriptions on the graphs to English.
Response Figure 12: Thank you for pointing this out. I have taken the suggestions on board and changed the descriptions of all charts and graphs in the full text to English.
Line 448: Discussion of results: this part is also very superficial. There are no references to literature.
Response Line 448: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions and have re-summarized the content, as well as supplemented the references.
Line 468: Only selected sentences are typical conclusions. In my opinion, this part should also be improved. I propose describing more of the prospects of your research. What will your prototype contribute to science/industry, etc.
Response Line 468: Thank you for pointing this out. I have taken the suggestions on board. I have re-summarized the conclusion, supplementing the possible impacts on future drying devices and the contributions to the pharmaceutical drying industry.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic and approach of this study are highly relevant and could provide a meaningful contribution to the field of medicinal plant processing. However, the manuscript must be substantially revised to meet the standards of a scientific publication. Enhancing the structure, adding statistical validation, improving clarity in visual and textual presentation, and refining the English will greatly improve the manuscript’s quality.
Below are specific comments aimed at improving the quality and clarity of your work.
Unclear structure and research objectives
The manuscript simultaneously covers experimental drying trials, CFD simulations, and design of equipment, but lacks clearly defined research questions and objectives. At the end of the introduction, explicitly state the aims of the study. For instance: “The objectives of this study are to (1) compare the effectiveness of different drying methods for Fritillaria Ussuriensis, (2) design and optimize a drying device using CFD simulation, and (3) validate the proposed design through experimental testing.”
Methodological inconsistency and lack of experimental detail
Experimental and simulation procedures are interwoven in the same section, which makes it difficult to follow the workflow. Furthermore, details such as sample size, number of replicates, and selection criteria are not clearly provided. Separate the experimental procedures and simulation methodology into two distinct sections. Clearly describe the number of samples used, how replicates were handled, and the criteria for grouping Fritillaria by size.
Lack of statistical analysis
Although the manuscript provides comparative data for different drying methods, it does not include statistical analysis to determine whether the differences observed are significant. Include basic statistical tests (e.g., t-tests or ANOVA) for comparisons of moisture content, peimine A/B levels, and other key parameters. This would substantiate your conclusions and improve scientific rigor.
Insufficient validation of the simulation model
- While the manuscript compares simulation and experimental results qualitatively, there is no quantitative validation.
- Add numerical comparisons (e.g., RMSE, absolute/relative error) between simulated and measured temperature/moisture profiles. Discuss sources of deviation and model limitations.
Figures and tables
Several figures (e.g., Figures 2, 5, 6, and 7) lack adequate explanation. Captions are brief and do not guide the reader through what should be observed. Improve figure captions by adding context and interpretation. For instance: “Figure 6a. Temperature distribution at steady state in Structure 2, showing uniform heat distribution due to staggered tray placement.”
Conclusion
The conclusion section mainly restates results without offering insight or reflecting on broader implications. Rewrite the conclusion to summarize the key contributions (e.g., improved drying uniformity, device design validation), limitations (e.g., single-plant focus), and directions for future research (e.g., testing on other herbal materials or scaling the system).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA thorough English language revision is necessary-ideally by a native speaker or professional scientific editor. Avoid repeating the full plant name in every sentence; use pronouns or shorter descriptors where context permits.
Author Response
Unclear structure and research objectives
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions and have re-summarized the last part of the introduction.
Methodological inconsistency and lack of experimental detail
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have taken the suggestions on board. I have readjusted the article structure, presented the simulation part and the experimental part separately, and supplemented the criteria for sample selection and the number of samples.
Lack of statistical analysis
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions. Since this part of the research content needs further in-depth study, and this paper mainly focuses on the hot-air drying method, the main research contents are the design of the drying device and the determination of the optimal process parameters. The research on the influence of different drying methods has been deleted, but the part of process parameter optimization for the hot-air drying method has been added with a three-factor three-level test and surface response analysis, as detailed in Section 4.4.
Insufficient validation of the simulation model
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have taken the suggestions on board. I have supplemented specific experimental data and added deviations to the curves.
Figures and tables
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions and have re-supplemented the explanations for the pictures in the text.
Conclusion
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have taken the suggestions on board. I have re-summarized the conclusion, supplementing the possible impacts on future drying devices and the contributions to the pharmaceutical drying industry.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accepted the suggestions and made corresponding modifications.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors of most comments included in the review. I accept the corrections made.
Author Response
Authors of most comments included in the review. I accept the corrections made.
Response 1：Thank you for pointing this out. I accept your valuable suggestions and have made revisions. The specific revised content has been highlighted with a yellow background.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have substantially and objectively addressed all major reviewer concerns. Minor improvements remain in the language quality and could be strengthened in the quantitative simulation validation, but these do not detract from the scientific quality and integrity of the revision.
Author Response
The authors have substantially and objectively addressed all major reviewer concerns. Minor improvements remain in the language quality and could be strengthened in the quantitative simulation validation, but these do not detract from the scientific quality and integrity of the revision.
Response : Thank you for pointing this out.I accept your valuable suggestions and have made revisions. The specific revised content has been highlighted with a yellow background.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
