Experimental Study on the Peeling Fracture Effect of Fresh Corn Ear Based on High and Low Roller Peeling Equipment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I congratulate you on the effort you put into the article. Please answer my questions item by item.
1. More results should be given in the abstract.
2. The keywords should not include the words in the title
3. All units given in the article should be given with a superscript.for example Not r/min, it must be min-1
4. All headings in the article should be revised. They are all numbered incorrectly
5. Where is the heading Materials and Methods?
6. The equipment for peeling fresh corn should be enlarged in Figure 3.
7. Why were line numbers not given when the broadcast was uploaded?
8. ?1 is the friction force between (unit must be written)
9. The units of all unknowns given in the article must be shown next to them.
10. How did you measure fresh ears of maize? The degree of precision of the measuring instrument should be given in the article.
11. ?1 ?2are the pressure of the ear to the low roller and high roller (How and with what is it measured? Should it be given in the article?)
12. ?1 , ?2 are the tangential speed of the ear relative to the low roller and high roller (How and with what is it measured? Should it be given in the article?)
13. How and with what was the speed of the peeling roller measured?
14. How and with what was the frequency vibration plate?
15. frequency vibration would be more scientific if given in Hz
16. “The experiment was conducted in the testing facility to investigate the effect of peeling result under different conditions of the peeling roller speed, the peeling roller inclination and the frequency vibrating plate, and the BPR and GBR were choose as the evaluation indicators”
· What is different condition? You must give all
· How did you determine these different conditions, did you choose these values on your own or were they taken from another study?
17. spelling rules and font should be checked from the beginning to the end of the article
18. What is the number of samples used in the trial?
19. how the moisture content of fresh corn ears was found, should be given in the article
20. Where and how did you create the graphs in Figures 6 and 7?
21. The data obtained as a result of the experiments are given as a result. However, I could not see a single line where the results obtained were discussed. The results that are not discussed are far from scientific and do not provide any benefit. The data obtained must be discussed with the results obtained from previous studies. An article without discussion is unacceptable.
22. The conclusions section should be written in a broader form.
Author Response
1. More results should be given in the abstract.
Response 1: OK. We have modified this part. Please see lines 24-26.
2. The keywords should not include the words in the title
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion, and we have adjusted the title. Please see lines 93, 139.
3. All units given in the article should be given with a superscript. for example, not r/min, it must be min-1
Response 3: We checked all the units in the whole paper, and adjusted the superscript. Thanks.
4. All headings in the article should be revised. They are all numbered incorrectly
Response 4: Sorry for the errors, and they have been numbered again. Thanks.
5. Where is the heading Materials and Methods?
Response 5: Please see line 240. Thanks.
6. The equipment for peeling fresh corn should be enlarged in Figure 3.
Response 6: Figure 3 revised to figure 1. Please see line 98. Thanks.
7. Why were line numbers not given when the broadcast was uploaded?
Response 7: The version we set to the editor was with numbers, we don’t know why the numbers missed. But we added the line numbers in the paper. Thanks.
8. ?1 is the friction force between (unit must be written)
Response 8: OK. Thanks.
9. The units of all unknowns given in the article must be shown next to them.
Response 9: We have checked all the unknowns in the paper, and added the units next to them. Thanks.
10. How did you measure fresh ears of maize? The degree of precision of the measuring instrument should be given in the article.
Response 10: Additions have been made in the article. The degree of precision of the measuring instrument has been given in the article. Please see line 168. Thanks.
11. ?1 ?2 are the pressure of the ear to the low roller and high roller (How and with what is it measured? Should it be given in the article?)
Response 11: (1) THYMH-018 mini load cell is used, which is a product of Hengyuan Sensor Technology Co. The micro load cell is fixed at any position of the peeling roller, and the pressure of P1, P2 on the low and high rolls is measured by using the micro load cell + special digital display instrument. Thanks.
(2) There is no need to give this in the article as this measurement is relatively simple. Thanks.
12. ?1, ?2 are the tangential speed of the ear relative to the low roller and high roller (How and with what is it measured? Should it be given in the article?)
Response 12: (1) Tangential speed, is measured at any point tangent to the object doing curvilinear motion, therefore, the relationship between the angular velocity ω and tangential velocity v1 can be expressed by the formula v1 = ωr, where r is the radius of the curvilinear motion, measured at any time along the circumferential component of the motion, is the tangential velocity. Similarly, for v2. Thanks.
(2) There is no need to give this in the article as this measurement is relatively simple. Thanks.
13. How and with what was the speed of the peeling roller measured?
Response 13: The LZ-MK10 intelligent high-frequency diffuse reflection photoelectric sensor is used to measure the speed of the peeling rollers, and the speed value is read by matching with the tachometer. Thanks.
14. How and with what was the frequency vibration plate?
Response 14: The HYMH-018 miniature load cell is used for measurement, through the use of a special digital display instrument. Thanks.
15. frequency vibration would be more scientific if given in Hz.
Response 15: For specific test situations which needed special treatment, I think the number of vibrations, which is more in line with the needs of the process in practice will be helpful. So, we used the numbers here for vibrations. Thanks.
16. “The experiment was conducted in the testing facility to investigate the effect of peeling result under different conditions of the peeling roller speed, the peeling roller inclination and the frequency vibrating plate, and the BPR and GBR were choose as the evaluation in 3dicators”
· What is different condition? You must give all
· How did you determine these different conditions, did you choose these values on your own or were they taken from another study?
Response 16: (1) Here, different conditions mean the experiments conducted under. Three rotational speeds of the peeling rollers (400 r·min-1, 450 r·min-1, and 500 r·min-1), three tilting angles of the peeling rollers (5°, 7°, and 9°), and three numbers of reciprocating movements of the frequency vibrating plate (250 times·min-1, 260 times·min-1, and 270 times·min-1). The quality of ear peeling was evaluated using two indicators: BPR and GBR, as they are critical in controlling the quality of ear peeling.
(2) The determination of these different conditions is based on previous practical experience of the subject group and in the literature [19,24,27], which has a certain value of use and a certain reference value for the experiment.
17. spelling rules and font should be checked from the beginning to the end of the article
Response 17: We checked the spelling rules and front for the whole paper and modified these mistakes. Thanks.
18. What is the number of samples used in the trial?
Response 18: Each set of trials was replicated three times and 10 fresh corn ears were placed in a single trial. So, the total samples used in the experiment were 30. We added this information in lines 258-259. Thanks.
19. how the moisture content of fresh corn ears was found, should be given in the article
Response 19: The water content of fresh corn ears mass of water contained in the ear/overall ear mass (water content + dry matter) ×100%. So, the total samples used in the experiment were 30. We added this information in lines 257-258. Thanks
20. Where and how did you create the graphs in Figures 6 and 7
Response 20: We used the Box-Behnken center grouping method in the Design-Expert software to analyze the data, and called up the "Model Graphs" by the "Analysis" command to generate the response surface graphs which Figures 6 and 7 were cerated. Thanks.
21. The data obtained as a result of the experiments are given as a result. However, I could not see a single line where the results obtained were discussed. The results that are not discussed are far from scientific and do not provide any benefit. The data obtained must be discussed with the results obtained from previous studies. An article without discussion is unacceptable.
Response 21: We added the discussions in line 385. Thanks.
22. The conclusions section should be written in a broader form.
Response 22: We modified the conclusions part, please see lines 428-454. Thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The title format of each chapter in the full manuscript is inconsistent, the third and fifth chapters lack labels, and the serial number of the chapters in the full manuscript is unclear.
2. There are two "1" in the title of Chapter 1. For basic formatting and syntax issues, it is recommended that the author review the full manuscript carefully.
3. The innovation of the article is not clearly reflected. It is suggested that the author should add corresponding content appropriately.
4. When the prototype was used for testing, three groups of tests were adopted, each group of 20 experimental corn, and the final conclusion was that BPR was 91.75% and GBR was 1.55%. However, Maybe the number of corn used in a production activity in the actual production process is greater than 20. And the optimization effect of 0.66% and 0.08% is not significant in my opinion, sometimes there are random errors. It is likely to decrease or even disappear as the amount of corn increases. It is suggested that the author rethink and revise the research content of the manuscript with regard to this comment.
Author Response
- The title format of each chapter in the full manuscript is inconsistent, the third and fifth chapters lack labels, and the serial number of the chapters in the full manuscript is unclear.
Response 1: We checked all the title format and modified it. Thanks.
- There are two "1" in the title of Chapter 1. For basic formatting and syntax issues, it is recommended that the author review the full manuscript carefully.
Response 2: We reviewed the full manuscript and adjusted them. Thanks for your carefully review.
- The innovation of the article is not clearly reflected. It is suggested that the author should add corresponding content appropriately.
Response 3: Such as the structural design and working principle of the high and low roller peeling equipment shown in title 2, in particular, the peeling rollers were designed in sections and the spiral adjusting frame was structurally improved and optimized. We added this information in lines 108-138.
- When the prototype was used for testing, three groups of tests were adopted, each group of 20 experimental corn, and the final conclusion was that BPR was 91.75% and GBR was 1.55%. However, Maybe the number of corn used in a production activity in the actual production process is greater than 20. And the optimization effect of 0.66% and 0.08% is not significant in my opinion, sometimes there are random errors. It is likely to decrease or even disappear as the amount of corn increases. It is suggested that the author rethink and revise the research content of the manuscript with regard to this comment.
Response 4: You're right. All the experiments in the paper were the experiments wiped off the random errors, and the actual number of experiments greater than 20，and we added this information in lines 370-371.
The "0.66% and 0.08% optimization effect" is to use the optimization module in the software to derive the theoretical values of the optimized working parameters, and then carry out the validation experiments to compare the theoretical values with the actual experimental results. The small difference between the theoretical values and the experimental verification values shows the effectiveness and reliability of the fresh corn peeling equipment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The theoretical analysis of the article is sufficient, but the experimental part did not show a schematic diagram of the actual effect of the machine. Although supported by data, the schematic diagram is more intuitive. At the same time, the author is quite careless, and the article is not labeled with line numbers, and the titles at each level are also incorrect. The author also needs to carefully revise the content based on the following suggestions:
1. Why are the F1 and F2 directions inconsistent in Figures 1a and 1c?
2. How many corns were measured in the previous paragraph of Figure 2?
3. The entire article lacks line numbers, making it difficult to specifically indicate problematic sentences.
4. The first level title of the article is incorrect.
5. The article should first introduce the working principle of the machine before conducting force analysis.
6. The section after Figure 4 should provide a more detailed schematic diagram of the peeling process.
7. The shooting angle in Figure 4 is not good, or show a few more angles to ensure that the peeling roller can be seen.
8. As this article is about the study of corn peeling, it should demonstrate the effect and pictures of corn peeling.
9. If conditions permit, high-speed camera should be used to record the peeling process for Empirical research.
10. Figure 1 mentions two rollers, high and low. Why are the two rollers in Figure 3 the same height?
Moderate editing of English language.
Author Response
- Why are the F1 and F2 directions inconsistent in Figures 1a and 1c?
Response 1: After the revision, Figures 1a and 1c were moved to Figures 2(a) and 2(c), and we removed F1 and F2 in Figure 2(c) since they are repetitive. Thanks.
- How many corns were measured in the previous paragraph of Figure 2?
Response 2: 100 ears of fresh corn were measured. Thanks.
- The entire article lacks line numbers, making it difficult to specifically indicate problematic sentences.
Response 3: We have modified it. Thanks.
- The first level title of the article is incorrect.
Response 4: Thanks for your carefully review, we have modified it. Thanks.
- The article should first introduce the working principle of the machine before conducting force analysis.
Response 5: We have added the working principle in the paper, please see lines 100-107. Thanks.
- The section after Figure 4 should provide a more detailed schematic diagram of the peeling process.
Response 6: After the discussion with other authors, we think it is not necessary to add a more detailed schematic diagram of the peeling process since the already existing information were enough. Please see line 98 and line 145, which could explain this. Thanks.
- The shooting angle in Figure 4 is not good, or show a few more angles to ensure that the peeling roller can be seen.
Response 7: OK, we added the information in lines 250-251. Thanks.
- As this article is about the study of corn peeling, it should demonstrate the effect and pictures of corn peeling.
Response 8: Yes, we added the information in lines 382-383. Thanks.
- If conditions permit, high-speed camera should be used to record the peeling process for Empirical research.
Response 9: Due to certain constraints, such as the availability of resources, this study was unable to record the peeling process using a high-speed video camera. However, the reliability of the peeling equipment was still can ensure the experiment. Firstly, the parameters of the peeling machine for fresh corn ears were determined using theoretical analysis, and these parameters were obtained by experiments and we analysized the test data to guarantee the precision. Then, the machine was set up based on established criteria. Furthermore, validation tests were carried out to assess the performance of the optimized equipment. In the experiment, the peeling process was conducted using the parameters obtained from the optimization process. The resulting datas from the validation experiment were compared to the expected outcomes, and the level of consistency between the two indicated the reliability of the peeling equipment. Although we didn’t used the high-speed video recording is a limitation, the parameters obtained from optimization and the successful validation tests provided confidence in the performance and reliability of the peeling equipment for fresh corn ears.
- Figure 1 mentions two rollers, high and low. Why are the two rollers in Figure 3 the same height?
Response 10: After the modification, Figure 3 was moved to Figure 1.
Figure 1 in the combination of peeling rollers for the high and low rollers, a total of four rollers, of which the low rollers for the two heights of the same, high rollers two heights of the same. However, the heights of the high and low rollers are not the same. There are two reasons for this: (1) there will be no peeling rollers on the load and overload phenomenon; (2) friction generated can let the ear rotate along its own axis and to ensure that the ear along the grooves according to a certain direction of movement.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors for making all the requested changes with care.
There must be a space between the % sign and the numbers
Figure 8 size should be increased and resolution should be improved
Line 161....please check
Line 77-78...please check
Author Response
There must be a space between the % sign and the numbers
Response 1: OK. We checked all the units in the whole paper, and made adjustments. Thanks.
Figure 8 size should be increased and resolution should be improved
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion, and we have adjusted.
Line 161....please check
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Line 161 is a deleted line; the previous formula was incorrectly written and has been corrected as well as deleted.
Line 77-78...please check
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. Lines 77-78 have been appropriately deleted because GBR and BPR have been given capitalization (abbreviation) earlier in the same paragraph and can be abbreviated directly here.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author have revised the manuscript according the comments.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Minor editing of English language required.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion, we have edited the entire article for English language optimization.
