Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The introduction is relatively small, and there are no references to literature from other countries.

2. Section 3 should be followed by 3.1 instead of 4.1. Similarly, section 4 should be followed by 4.1.

 

3. The image resolution is relatively low, and all image resolutions should be adjusted.

The sentences in the whole article are fluent, and the details need to be checked sentence by sentence.

Author Response

尊敬的审稿人，衷心感谢您的建设性意见。请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Since this paper is an experimental study on the optimization of the working parameters of the cleaning fan for a class of crops, specific crops should be marked in the title and abstract.

2. The Abstract needs to be revised. It does not clearly state what problems to solve, what methods to use, and how to achieve the results. These contents should be clearly stated to let others understand your full text;

3. The case format of keywords should be unified

4. Is it a real problem now that the horizontal distance from the air outlet to the upper screen (air supply distance), the fan speed and the number of blades described in lines 56-59 in this paper? It is recommended that 60 % of the references are from the past three years and 90 % from the past five years. I hope the author can think carefully and re-condense the expression of the introduction content.

5. It is suggested that the author consider from the following aspects: the challenge of this study, current problems in the field, significant findings from the study.

6. Please explain in detail the basis for selecting test factors and evaluation indicators in line 95-106.

7. Single factor test why choose blade number 4 as a fixed factor and the late single factor test to select the best operating range of 6-10, then through the fixed factor to select the fan speed and air supply distance of the best range will not be accurate or no reference value?  Please explain.

8. In the multi-factor test, it is recommended to increase the response surface diagram and analyze it.

9. How is the average airflow velocity measured in the verification bench test ?  It is suggested that the verification test should be expressed in a small point alone, and the test scheme and method should be briefly described.

10. It is suggested to summarize the content of the whole manuscript and highlight the highlights in the conclusion part of the manuscript.

11. There are many small errors in the text, such as the unit in table 2, the unit in table 3, the title number of 117 lines, the title number of 313 lines, and the author is asked to carefully examine and correct them.

Author Response

尊敬的审稿人，衷心感谢您的建设性意见。请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is of scientific and practical interest. This study examines the effect of fan design parameters and speed, as well as its location relative to the cleaning screens, on the airflow performance in the cleaning area.
The article is clearly presented with enough data to understand the problem to be solved and possible reproduction of the results of the study. Conducted a complete review and information on the relevance of the problem under study. However, there are no references to foreign studies.
In Table 1, perhaps incorrectly specified fan parameters: inlet diameter - 0.66 mm, outlet height - 0.35 mm, the external extension of the spiral head - 0.15 mm. When modeling the air flows, the resistance from the cleaned mass on the upper and lower grids was not taken into account. The presence of this mass will contribute to a change in the pattern of air flow. From the information given in the article is not clear why the measurement of air flow was carried out at a distance of 120 mm from the top grid, and not, for example, at 70 or 150 mm? In Figure 5a there is a marking with a red dashed line (high efficiency cleaning zone), but there is no translation of the term in English. There are also untranslated units in Tables 3 and 4. In table 4, the penultimate column is probably zone C? The number of blades selected in the simulation is 6, 8 and 10. Why this number? Would 12 or 16 be best? The simulation does not take into account the fluctuations of air velocity from the number of blades. The greater the number of blades the difference in air flow fluctuations will be less. The article provides the results of the experimental studies, but there is no information about: how, with which device and at which points air flow velocities were measured, how losses were determined? What kind of grain heap and with what properties was used to determine the losses during the operation of the unit? How was the flow of 8 kg/s and how was it measured? In line 416 there is a typo - extra characters - "0,".
The figures in the article are easy to read and have sufficient completeness of information.
The conclusions 1 and 2 reflect the results of the research, derived from them and substantiated in the course of the work, which is a significant advantage of this work. From the analysis of conclusion 3 we can say that the more blades the better, then what is the maximum number of blades needed to ensure the quality of the process?
This work is theoretical and practical in nature in the future can be used by other scientists and subsequently improved, as well as taken as a basis for the development of cleaning systems combine harvesters.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, sincerely thank you for your constructive comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx