Experiment and Analysis of Physical Properties of Sweet Potato Varieties at Different Harvesting Periods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to Authors

The manuscript entitled “Experiment and Analysis of Physical Properties of Sweet Potato Varieties at Different Harvesting Periods” is very interesting. This paper studied the mechanical and physical properties of three varieties of sweet potato at three time points.The research results provide data references for the design of digging depth,working width,and chain bar gap of the sweet potato harvester in the later stage,and provide data references for sweet potato simulation experiments. Functional implementation in the experiment presented in the manuscript which is suitable for publication. However, some major revision needed before the final acceptance. There are so many shorting coming from abstract to conclusion (needs improvement) that needs to be fixed before it processed for publication sector.

Serious problems:

1. The paper simply measured the density, moisture content and Poisson's ratio of different varieties of sweet potato in different periods, which is of little significance.

2. There is only a simple analysis of the measurement results in the article, and we would like to see more than just the measurement of physical properties.

3. There are problems with the format of most pictures in the article. I hope to re-complete the production and modification of the content and format of pictures.

Specific comments

Title: The title is good.

Abstract:

1. line 12-14: "Sweet Potato 16" should be "Su-Shu 16" for consistency. "Sweet Potato 36" should be "Su-Shu 36" for consistency.

2. Add some more brief description of results. The abstract lack of such information.

Introduction:

1.  There are several incorrect references. Please check the source of the reference and fix it.

2. line 43-45: For consistency, replace "representing about" with "representing approximately".

Materials and Methods:

1. There are several incorrect references. Please check the source of the reference and fix it.(such as:line 130,line154)

2. Please add more pictures or test schematics during the test to more intuitively illustrate the completion of the test.

Results:

1. Please check whether there are duplicates in the header numbers and whether the order is correct (" Table 2 "repeats).

2. Please check the image format for errors, such as missing axes and arrows. (Figures 4 to 10)

3. We would like to see further description and explanation of the results in the results section rather than simply showing the results.

4.Please further modify the picture content to better show the test situation, for example, modify the mutual occlusion of numbers and lines in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

Discussion:

1. There are several incorrect references. Please check the source of the reference and fix it.(such as: line 315, line 322, line 330)

2. In the discussion section, we hope to see more abundant pictures and content, please increase the analysis and discussion of the results appropriately.

Conclusion: Can Conclusion 1 and Conclusion 2 be combined? Conclusion 3 is too miscellaneous and can be appropriately simplified.

Reference: It's best to update the references and replace them with new.

General Comments

Please double check the spelling, punctuation, ordinal numbers in the manuscript.

Double check that all references are cited within the text, and that all citations within the text have a corresponding reference. Double check the spelling of the author names and its affiliation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for taking the time to review this paper. We are honored to receive your valuable feedback and suggestions. We have made revisions to the paper based on the comments you provided.

First of all, regarding the serious problems you raised, we provide the following response:
1. This article measures the relevant parameters of different varieties of sweet potatoes at different periods in order to provide data support for the subsequent design of key components of sweet potato harvesters, and to provide data reference for subsequent machine simulation and simulation, which has a certain practical significance.
2. We conducted a more in-depth and detailed analysis of the results based on the feedback you provided.
3. The image format and content in the article have been remade and modified.

Secondly, regarding the specific comments you raised, we provide the following answers:

Title:
Thank you for your affirmation, the title of the article has not been changed.

Abstract:
1. We have rewritten the abstract and standardized all names.
2. We have included a simple description of the results in the summary, making the summary more concise and clear.

Introduction:
1. We corrected the incorrect references.
2. We replace 'representing about' with 'representing approximately'.

Materials and Methods:
1. We corrected the incorrect references.
2. We have added images during the testing process.

Results:
1. We checked all the table headers and figure captions, and corrected any duplicates and inaccuracies.
2. For images with incorrect formatting, we have redrawn them, adding axes and arrows.
3. We have provided a more in-depth interpretation and analysis of the results.
4. We have redrawn the image and made modifications to the obscured parts.

Discussion:
1. We corrected the incorrect references.
2. In the discussion, we did not add images, but we did increase the content of the discussion, enriching the analysis and discussion of the results.

Conclusion:
We have combined conclusion 1 and conclusion 2 together, and simplified conclusion 3.

Reference:
We have revised the references.

Finally, regarding the general comments you raised, we provide the following responses: We checked the spelling, punctuation, and ordinal numbers in the paper, all references are properly cited in the text, and we verified the spelling of author names and affiliations.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback on this article. Thank you!

With best regards!
Yours sincerely.
Jiwen Peng

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Experiment and Analysis of Physical Properties of Sweet Potato Varieties at Different Harvesting Periods

General Overview of the Paper

The article focuses on evaluation of various physical and chemical properties of different sweet potato varieties, including factors like moisture content, density and growth depth. It compares the performance of these varieties under certain conditions, aiming to identify which varieties are most suitable for specific uses or environments.

Title

The title is appropriate and scholarly, as it clearly conveys the study's scope and methodology.

Abstract

·         The abstract contains too many numerical data, which makes it difficult to follow. The presentation of the results could be more concise and grouped logically to enhance readability.

·          The authors should summarize key findings by grouping similar data together. Instead of listing every moisture content and density reading, present the range or average values and include a brief comparison.

·         Remove repetitive phrases like "it is found that" to make the abstract more concise.

Introduction

·         Terms like "yam" and "taro" are incorrectly used as synonyms for sweet potato, which may confuse readers.

·         The introduction focuses too much on listing past studies without connecting them to the current research. Instead of just mentioning what others have done, it should explain how this study builds on or differs from previous work, clearly showing the research gap and what this study adds.

Materials and Methods

·         What informed the selection of 10 sweet potato samples for certain tests? Any justification or reference(s) for this decision?

·          In the determination of moisture content and density, how did you address variations in sweet potato size and how many replicates were done to ensure consistency in measurements?

·         How was the experimental data analyzed statistically?

Results

·         Lines 192, 198, 204, 215, 226:  In the ‘Results’ section, the authors should avoid using subtitles like ‘Measurement of’, ‘Determination of’, and ‘Sweet Potato Density Determination Experiment’. These should have been addressed in the preceding section. Rather, present the results with appropriate subtitles

Discussion

·         The text in discussion section mentions experimental findings, like the decrease in moisture content over time and differences between sweet potato varieties, but it doesn’t clearly explain why these results matter or how they relate to the research goals.

·         The text often mentions results from other studies (e.g., Shen Haiyang et al., Liu Chenglong et al.)  but doesn't connect them well to the current research, making it unclear how these studies relate to the new findings.

Conclusions

·         The conclusions include a lot of detailed numerical data but do not clearly highlight the main insights, making it hard to identify the key points.

·         The data on moisture content, density and compressive strength is repeated with slight variations, causing unnecessary repetition.

·         While the conclusions list findings, they don't explain why these results matter in the larger context of the research. The connection between the data and its practical significance is not clear.

·         The information is disorganized, making it difficult to follow. The conclusions should be more structured to better support the study's main objectives.

References

·         The references cited in the text do not match the references listed.

·         The reference list shows inconsistency in formatting, with some entries in capital letters and others not.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for taking the time to review this paper. We are honored to receive your valuable feedback and suggestions. We have made revisions to the paper based on the comments you provided.

Title:
Thank you for your affirmation, the title of the article has not been changed.

Abstract:
We have rewritten the abstract, added a brief description of the results in the abstract, compared and analyzed all the data, summarized key findings, making the abstract more concise and clear, enhancing its logicality and readability.

Introduction:
1. We have made modifications to the introduction by removing incorrect terms.
2. We have connected previous research with the current one, explaining the differences and improvements between the current and previous studies.

Materials and Methods:
In response to the three questions you raised, we provide the following answers:
1. Conducting experiments on 10 samples is equivalent to conducting 10 repeated experiments. As individual experiment data may contain errors that could significantly impact the results, randomly selecting 10 samples for 10 repeated experiments and then averaging the results can effectively reduce experimental errors and improve the accuracy of measurement data.
2. When measuring the moisture content of sweet potatoes, we use a utility knife to cut the sweet potatoes into moderately sized pieces. Each sweet potato piece and its corresponding drying box are measured and recorded individually. To ensure the accuracy of the measurement results, we conduct ten repeated measurements for the moisture content of each variety of sweet potatoes.
When measuring the density, we randomly select intact sweet potatoes for measurement without damaging their integrity. The size of the sweet potatoes does not affect the density measurement results. Additionally, to ensure the accuracy of the experimental results, we conduct ten repeated measurements for the density of each variety of sweet potatoes.
3. In the compression test data analysis of sweet potatoes, compressive tests are conducted on sweet potato samples to record the stress-strain data during the loading process. By statistically analyzing these data, the compressive performance of sweet potatoes can be evaluated to understand their resistance to damage during harvesting. Additionally, comparing the compression test data of different sweet potato varieties can help study the differences in their physical properties.

Results:
We have modified all the subheadings of the results.

Discussion:
We reinterpreted the significance of the experimental results. The purpose of this study was to determine the correlation coefficients of sweet potatoes, compare the differences between different sweet potatoes at different times, and provide data support and reference for subsequent work. The previous studies mentioned in the text are the foundation of this study. This study expanded upon previous research by adding parts that had not been studied before.

Conclusions:
1. We reanalyzed the results, highlighting key points of our own insights and discoveries.
2. We have made modifications and reorganized the repeated data to enhance the logical coherence of the conclusions and make the structure more structured.

References：
We have revised the references and standardized the format of the citations.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback on this article. Thank you!

With best regards!
Yours sincerely.
Jiwen Peng

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised as required. The author's response to the question is quite clear. I agree to accept this manuscript.