You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Tianyou Chen1,2,
  • Wenyu Zhang2 and
  • Yuqiu Song2,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Han-Tsung Wang Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: The abstract is a concise version of the manuscript and must contain all essential elements relevant to the research article. Include a brief sentence highlighting the application of the study.  Please provide a clearer, more detailed step-by-step description of the methodology. The results part is longer than the other parts, so it should be more concise. 

Keywords:  Replace repeated keywords with alternative terms that do not appear in the title.


Introduction:  Consider adding some global data related to crop straws.  Within the Introduction and further throughout the manuscript, after the authors' names, add the year of publication in brackets.


Materials and Methods:  Add the name of the tofu processing factory and the city that provided fresh soybean dregs. For all used equipment, include the name and country of manufacture. The titles of the subsections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 should be corrected.


Results and Discussion: Below of all the figures add explanations for T11, T12, T21, and T22.  The quality of Figures 6 and 7 needs improvement. 


Conclusion: No need to repeat results within the conclusion section. Who and how could benefit from the provided results? What are future directions? 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of wet soybean dregs on forming relaxation ratio,  maximum compressive force and specific energy consumption of corn straws” (ID: agriculture-3709334). We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the your insightful comments. We did a major revision to the manuscript according to the your comments, and found these comments are very helpful. We hope this revision can make our manuscript more acceptable. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The revisions were addressed point by point below.

Please feel free to contact us if there is any questions.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

  1. Abstract: The abstract is a concise version of the manuscript and must contain all essential elements relevant to the research article. Include a brief sentence highlighting the application of the study. Please provide a clearer, more detailed step-by-step description of the methodology. The results part is longer than the other parts, so it should be more concise.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the abstract of the manuscript has been revised.

  1. Keywords: Replace repeated keywords with alternative terms that do not appear in the title.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have changed the keywords to "wet soybean dregs; corn straw; pelleting; evaluation indicators".

  1. Introduction: Consider adding some global data related to crop straws. Within the Introduction and further throughout the manuscript, after the authors' names, add the year of publication in brackets.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added some global data on crop straws. However, according to the journal's guidelines, adding the publication year in brackets after the author's name is not permitted, therefore, this formatting remains unmodified.

  1. Materials and Methods: Add the name of the tofu processing factory and the city that provided fresh soybean dregs. For all used equipment, include the name and country of manufacture. The titles of the subsections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 should be corrected.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. According to your suggestion, the name and city of the tofu processing factory that provided fresh soybean dregs have been added. Information such as the manufacturer's name and country has been added for all equipment used. In addition, the titles of subsections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 have also been corrected.

  1. Results and Discussion: Below of all the figures add explanations for T11, T12, T21, and T22. The quality of Figures 6 and 7 needs improvement.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have added explanations for T11, T12, T21, and T22 below all relevant images. Additionally, Figures 6 and 7 have been modified accordingly.

  1. Conclusion: No need to repeat results within the conclusion section. Who and how could benefit from the provided results? What are future directions?

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the conclusion section has been revised, and both the application of the research results and future research directions have been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

  • The manuscript includes line numbers only on the first page, making it difficult to precisely indicate the locations where revisions or clarifications are needed. Line numbering throughout the manuscript is recommended.
  • The purpose of pelleting in this study needs to be clearly defined. Specifically, for what application are the pellets intended? If the objective is to address the issue of high-moisture soybean dregs, fermentation alone may already offer a suitable solution. The rationale for choosing pelleting over fermentation alone should be clarified.
  • The combination of soybean dregs and finely chopped corn straw is assumed to be used as animal feed. However, the target livestock species is not clearly specified. It is important to identify the intended end-use to determine the necessary properties of the final pellet product and justify the experimental design.
  • The reason for using fermented soybean dregs rather than fresh ones should be explained. Was this choice made to improve storability, reduce spoilage, or enhance nutritional value?
  • After mixing soybean dregs with corn straw and pelleting the material, is there any concern regarding mold growth during storage? Potential risks of mycotoxin contamination due to mold should be discussed.
  • The study evaluates the effects of two corn straw particle lengths and two compression displacements, as well as different moisture contents and soybean dregs addition levels. However, the manuscript currently lacks a clear description of the experimental design. A factorial design would be appropriate to evaluate the main effects and interactions of these factors systematically.
  • It is unclear whether the error bars shown in the figures represent standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE). Furthermore, no information is provided regarding the statistical significance among treatments. Descriptions of statistical analysis and experimental design should be added.

Specific Comments:(without the line number, it only showed the subtitle number)

Section 2.1: Materials

  • The manuscript states the use of an "EM yeast starter exclusive for soybean dregs for 10 days of fermentation." Please specify the inoculation concentration of the EM yeast. Was the fermentation conducted under anaerobic conditions?
  • Additionally, provide the basic chemical composition of the fermented product (e.g., moisture, protein, fiber content).
  • The rationale for setting the fermentation period at 10 days should also be explained.

Section 2.2.1: Instruments and Program

  • Was any external heating applied during the pelleting process? If not, was there any heat generated due to compression or friction? Thermal effects can influence the moisture content of the final product and should be addressed.

Section 3.1.1: Effect of Moisture on Volume Relaxation Ratio of Straw Forming

  • The method of water addition is not described in the Materials and Methods section. Please provide detailed information on how water was added and homogenized.
  • In Figure 2, under the 2 mm straw size condition, the volume relaxation ratio is very low at low moisture content, but increases sharply at higher moisture levels, even exceeding the 4 mm group. Please include a discussion on the interaction effects between particle size and moisture content.

Section 3.1.2: Effect of Fermented Soybean Dregs on Volume Relaxation Ratio of Straw Forming

  • Clarify whether the improved pellet property is primarily due to the moisture content of the soybean dregs or the protein content. The referenced study uses potato dregs, which are high in starch, so compositional differences must be acknowledged and discussed.

Figures 4 and 5

  • Please explain why treatment T22 shows a substantial deviation from the other treatment groups in terms of maximum densification force. The variation in this group also differs markedly from the rest, suggesting unique factors at play that should be examined.

Figure 6

  • The specific energy consumption for pelleting is higher in the 4 mm group compared to the 2 mm group. However, was the energy consumption during the initial chopping stage higher for achieving 2 mm particle size? Please discuss this in relation to the total energy requirement for the process.

Section 4: Conclusions

  • The conclusion should clearly indicate which processing conditions are recommended for optimal pellet production. Specifically, is water addition or soybean dregs incorporation more beneficial? The manuscript should provide a definitive recommendation based on the data.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of wet soybean dregs on forming relaxation ratio, maximum compressive force and specific energy consumption of corn straws” (ID: agriculture-3709334). We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the your insightful comments. We did a major revision to the manuscript according to the your comments, and found these comments are very helpful. We hope this revision can make our manuscript more acceptable. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The revisions were addressed point by point below.

Please feel free to contact us if there is any questions.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

  1. The manuscript includes line numbers only on the first page, making it difficult to precisely indicate the locations where revisions or clarifications are needed. Line numbering throughout the manuscript is recommended.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have re-edited the format of the manuscript.

  1. The purpose of pelleting in this study needs to be clearly defined. Specifically, for what application are the pellets intended? If the objective is to address the issue of high-moisture soybean dregs, fermentation alone may already offer a suitable solution. The rationale for choosing pelleting over fermentation alone should be clarified.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The mixture of straw and fermented wet soybean dregs can be granulated and used as feed for ruminant animals such as cattle and sheep. The main purpose of fermentation is to prevent the deterioration of soybean dregs. Fermented soybean dregs have a high moisture content and contains nutrients. After mixing with straw, fermented soybean dregs can provide molding water for mixed feed and improve the nutritional value of feed. It is an effective method for processing high-quality feed using agricultural waste. This part of the content is added to the introduction of the manuscript.

3.The combination of soybean dregs and finely chopped corn straw is assumed to be used as animal feed. However, the target livestock species is not clearly specified. It is important to identify the intended end-use to determine the necessary properties of the final pellet product and justify the experimental design.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The processed feed pellets in this study are used for ruminant animals such as cattle and sheep. This information has been added to the Introduction of the manuscript.

  1. The reason for using fermented soybean dregs rather than fresh ones should be explained. Was this choice made to improve storability, reduce spoilage, or enhance nutritional value?

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Wet soybean dregs have high moisture content and are highly prone to spoilage. Generally, , they need to be stored and transported, which takes a long time and increases the risk of spoilage. Thus, it is necessary to ferment them. This information has been added to the Introduction of the manuscript.

  1. After mixing soybean dregs with corn straw and pelleting the material, is there any concern regarding mold growth during storage? Potential risks of mycotoxin contamination due to mold should be discussed.

 Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. When the addition ratio of wet fermented  soybean dregs exceeds 10%, the moisture content of these pellets exceeds 13%. These pellets pose a risk of mold growth if stored directly after processing and should therefore be dried before storage. These explanations have been added to section 3 of the manuscript.

  1. The study evaluates the effects of two corn straw particle lengths and two compression displacements, as well as different moisture contents and soybean dregs addition levels. However, the manuscript currently lacks a clear description of the experimental design. A factorial design would be appropriate to evaluate the main effects and interactions of these factors systematically.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the design and execution of experiments are described in detail in Section 2.2 (Methods) of the manuscript. Additionally, we conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the experimental data to examine the effects of various factors and their interactions on the volume relaxation ratio of feed pellets, maximum compressive force, and compression energy consumption. The description of the ANOVA method has been added to Section 2.2, and the corresponding results and analysis have been included in Section 3.

  1. It is unclear whether the error bars shown in the figures represent standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE). Furthermore, no information is provided regarding the statistical significance among treatments. Descriptions of statistical analysis and experimental design should be added.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, data analysis methods and software tools have been added to Section 2.2 (Methods) of the manuscript.

Specific Comments:

  1. The manuscript states the use of an "EM yeast starter exclusive for soybean dregs for 10 days of fermentation." Please specify the inoculation concentration of the EM yeast. Was the fermentation conducted under anaerobic conditions?

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the proportion of fermentation agent added and the fermentation conditions have been to Section 2.1 (Materials and Treatment) of the manuscript.

  1. Additionally, provide the basic chemical composition of the fermented product (e.g., moisture, protein, fiber content).

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, The nutrient components of fermented soybean dregs have been added to Section 2.1 (Materials and Treatment) of the manuscript.

  1. The rationale for setting the fermentation period at 10 days should also be explained.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to the instructions of the fermentation agent, after addition, fermentation is complete within 3-5 days and it can be used. Generally, fresh soybean dregs need to be fermented first, then transported and mixed with straw for pelleting. Therefore, this study used soybean dregs fermented for 10 days as the experimental material. An explanation for this choice has been added to Section 2.1 (Materials and Treatment) of the manuscript.

  1. Was any external heating applied during the pelleting process? If not, was there any heat generated due to compression or friction? Thermal effects can influence the moisture content of the final product and should be addressed.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In this study, cold pressing was used without any external heating. However, during the squeezing process, friction between straw and the inner wall of the mold generates some heat, so natural ventilation cooling and drying are required after the feed is formed. This content has been added to Section 2.2 (Methods) of the manuscript.

  1. The method of water addition is not described in the Materials and Methods section. Please provide detailed information on how water was added and homogenized.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In this study, the method of straw adding water and water homogenization is to use a small spray bottle to spray water on the straw, and then manually mix and seal it for 48 hours to make the water in the straw evenly distributed. This content has been added to Section 2.2 (Methods) of the manuscript.

  1. In Figure 2, under the 2 mm straw size condition, the volume relaxation ratio is very low at low moisture content, but increases sharply at higher moisture levels, even exceeding the 4 mm group. Please include a discussion on the interaction effects between particle size and moisture content.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the analysis of the interaction between particle size and moisture content has been added to Section 3.1.1 of the manuscript.

7.Clarify whether the improved pellet property is primarily due to the moisture content of the soybean dregs or the protein content. The referenced study uses potato dregs, which are high in starch, so compositional differences must be acknowledged and discussed.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. As advised, the rationale for incorporating wet soybean dregs into straw to reduce the volume relaxation ratio of feed pellets is detailed in Section 3.1 of the manuscript.

8.Please explain why treatment T22 shows a substantial deviation from the other treatment groups in terms of maximum densification force. The variation in this group also differs markedly from the rest, suggesting unique factors at play that should be examined.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the explanation for the difference between treatment T22 and the other three treatments regarding the effect of water or soybean dregs addition on maximum compressive force is given in Section 3.2 of the manuscript.

9.The specific energy consumption for pelleting is higher in the 4 mm group compared to the 2 mm group. However, was the energy consumption during the initial chopping stage higher for achieving 2 mm particle size? Please discuss this in relation to the total energy requirement for the process.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, previous research results have been cited and used to analyze the energy consumption of straw-processed feed pellets to determine their optimal particle size. This analysis has been added to the Section 3 of the manuscript.

  1. The conclusion should clearly indicate which processing conditions are recommended for optimal pellet production. Specifically, is water addition or soybean dregs incorporation more beneficial? The manuscript should provide a definitive recommendation based on the data.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the conclusion of the manuscript has been revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The attached file indicates the points to be addressed in the manuscript. The main problem I find in the study is the experimental design used, which, in my view, is flawed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although I'm not a native English speaker, some parts of the manuscript and some of the terms used are confusing. The manuscript should be revised in this regard.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of wet soybean dregs on forming relaxation ratio,  maximum compressive force and specific energy consumption of corn straws” (ID: agriculture-3709334). We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the your insightful comments. We did a major revision to the manuscript according to the your comments, and found these comments are very helpful. We hope this revision can make our manuscript more acceptable. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The revisions were addressed point by point below.

Please feel free to contact us if there is any questions.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

  1. Although I'm not a native English speaker, some parts of the manuscript and some of the terms used are confusing. The manuscript should be revised in this regard.

We have carefully checked the article and revised the English writing.

2.corn straw pellets

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the word 'pellets' has been added to the title of the manuscript.

  1. Which

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, 'Appropriate water addition' has been replaced with 'Which' in the revised manuscript.

  1. 5% see comment in conclusions

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have provided a detailed response in Comment 10.

  1. 10% see comment in conclusions

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have provided a detailed response in Comment 11.

  1. Does it refer to the g of water added per g of soybean dreg mass? Improve the wording of this paragraph, it is confusing.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have detailed the experimental design and execution in Section 2.2 (Methods) of the manuscript.

  1. Include a paragraph with information regarding the statistical analysis of the data.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, data analysis methods and software tools have been added to Section 2.2 (Methods) of the manuscript.

8.The problem with all the figures in the manuscript is that they do not include the literals that indicate significant statistical differences, so it is not possible to know whether the treatments are the same or different. It is also not possible to know the differences or similarities of the factor evaluated in this case: water addition mass.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the experimental data, and have added the method description and result analysis to Section 2.2 (Methods) and Section 3 (Results), respectively.

  1. In my view, the experimental design used to conduct this study is flawed, and therefore there are many confounding effects in the results.The data should have been analyzed using a factorial ANOVA with an initial model that considered the fixed effects of straw size (2, 4 mm), compression displacements (90, 92 mm), the mass of water added (0, 0.15, 0.30, 0.45, 0.60, 0.75 g), the mass of soybean dregs added (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 %), and the effect of their two-way interactions.Nonsignificant two-way interactions can be removed from the final model.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the design and execution of experiments are described in detail in section 2.2 of the manuscript. Additionally, we conducted an analysis of variance (variance analysis) on the experimental data to investigate the impact of various factors and interactions on the volume relaxation ratio of feed pellets, the maximum molding force, and the molding energy consumption. The method description and result analysis have been added in sections 2.2 and 3 of the manuscript, respectively.

  1. The description of all the figures begins with this phrase but in no case is it possible to know the statistical differences between treatments or between factors.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the significant impact of factors and interactions on indicators has been analyzed, and the analysis results have been added to Section 3 of the manuscript.

  1. According to the information provided in the materials and methods chapter "a smaller relaxation ratio means the material has a better forming effect". Therefore, the optimal mass level inclusion of soybean dregs is 5% (see figure 3).

Response: Thank you for your keen insight. Indeed, a small relaxation ratio means that the material has a better forming effect. As shown in Figure 3, for 2 mm straw, when the addition of soybean residue is 5%, the volume relaxation ratio of pellets is the smallest. However, from the comprehensive analysis of Figures 3, 5, and 7, it can be seen that when the addition amount of fermented wet soybean dregs are 10%, the volume relaxation ratio of the formed pellets of 2mm straw and fermented wet soybean dregs is also small, and the maximum compressive force and specific energy consumption are the smallest. Taking into account the pellets volume relaxation ratio, maximum compressive force, and molding energy consumption, the optimal addition ratio of wet fermented soybean dregs for 2mm straw is 10%. We provided a detailed description of the reasons for determining the optimal soybean dregs addition ratio in Section 3 of the revised manuscript.

12.The optimal mass level inclusion of soybean dregs is 10% (see figure 3).

Response: Thank you for your keen insight. In Figure 3, it can be seen that for 4 mm straw, when the addition of soybean dregs is 10%, the volume relaxation ratio of pellets is the smallest. However, from the comprehensive analysis of Figures 3, 5, and 7, it can be seen that when the addition amount of wet fermented soybean dregs is 5%, the volume relaxation ratio of the formed pellets of 4mm straw and wet fermented soybean dregs is also small, and the maximum compressive force and specific energy consumption are the smallest. Taking into account the particle volume relaxation ratio, maximum compressive force, and molding energy consumption, the optimal addition ratio of fermented wet soybean dregs for 4mm straw is 10%. We provided a detailed description of the reasons for determining the optimal soybean dregs addition ratio in Section 3 of the revised manuscript.

  1. What is the optimal water addition mass?What is the best particle size, 2 mm or 4 mm?What is the best compression displacement , 90 mm or 92 mm?There are still many things to be concluded.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the conclusion of the manuscript has been revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Drying Before Storage of Fermented Soybean Dregs:

If the fermented soybean dregs are dried before storage, the energy and time consumed could significantly affect the cost-effectiveness during practical application. It is recommended that the advantages and disadvantages of this treatment method be discussed in the Discussion section.

Fig.2 – Statistical Significance:

In Figure 2, please clarify whether there are statistically significant differences among the groups with different levels of water addition mass. If significant differences exist, appropriate statistical annotations should be included in the figure.

Fig. 3 - Statistical Significance:

In Figure 3, it should be indicated whether there are statistically significant differences among groups regarding the added mass ratio of fermented soybean dregs. If so, statistical significance should be marked clearly in the figure.

L111–112

The main microbial species or concentration range of the fermentation agent used for inoculation should be provided. Additionally, quality control points or indicators for the fermented soybean dregs should be described to ensure traceability and consistency during potential large-scale applications.

L 220 – Correlation Analysis:

The methodology for conducting the correlation analysis should be added to section 2.2.4 Data Analysis for clarity and reproducibility.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of wet soybean dregs on forming relaxation ratio, maximum compressive force and specific energy consumption of corn stover pellets” (ID: agriculture-3709334). We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the your insightful comments. We did a major revision to the manuscript according to the your comments, and found these comments are very helpful. We hope this revision can make our manuscript more acceptable. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The revisions were addressed point by point below.

Please feel free to contact us if there is any questions.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

1. If the fermented soybean dregs are dried before storage, the energy and time consumed could significantly affect the cost-effectiveness during practical application. It is recommended that the advantages and disadvantages of this treatment method be discussed in the Discussion section.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The total moisture content of mixed feed affects the molding effect. In addition, when the moisture content is high, it is necessary to dry the feed pellets, which will affect the cost of feed processing. Therefore, when determining the optimal molding process, it is necessary to consider the total moisture content of the feed. These contents have been added to Section 3 (Results and Discussion) of the manuscript.

2. In Figure 2, please clarify whether there are statistically significant differences among the groups with different levels of water addition mass. If significant differences exist, appropriate statistical annotations should be included in the figure.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the experimental data have been reanalyzed, and statistical differences between treatment groups are marked in all figures.

3. In Figure 3, it should be indicated whether there are statistically significant differences among groups regarding the added mass ratio of fermented soybean dregs. If so, statistical significance should be marked clearly in the figure.Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the experimental data have been reanalyzed, and statistical differences between treatment groups are marked in all figures.

4. The main microbial species or concentration range of the fermentation agent used for inoculation should be provided. Additionally, quality control points or indicators for the fermented soybean dregs should be described to ensure traceability and consistency during potential large-scale applications. Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, The main microbial species, concentration range and fermentation indicators of the fermentation agent are described in Section 2.1 (Materials and Treatment) of the manuscript.

5. The methodology for conducting the correlation analysis should be added to section 2.2.4 Data Analysis for clarity and reproducibility.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the analysis methods and models for experimental data are described in detail in section 2.2.4 (Data Analysis) of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While data analysis has been improved, its interpretation and presentation remain flawed. At the end of the document I've attached a file showing how, based on my experience, the results should be presented.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of wet soybean dregs on forming relaxation ratio, maximum compressive force and specific energy consumption of corn stover pellets” (ID: agriculture-3709334). We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the your insightful comments. We did a major revision to the manuscript according to the your comments, and found these comments are very helpful. We hope this revision can make our manuscript more acceptable. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The revisions were addressed point by point below.

Please feel free to contact us if there is any questions.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

1. While data analysis has been improved, its interpretation and presentation remain flawed. At the end of the document I've attached a file showing how, based on my experience, the results should be presented.

Response: Thank you for your guidance on analyzing the experimental data in my manuscript. We have completed this analysis following your recommendations.

2. Space

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We are very sorry for the missing space between the value and the unit. We have checked all the formats in the manuscript.

3. Explain in detail the experimental design used including the mathematical model.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the analysis methods and models for experimental data are described in detail in Section 2.2.4 (Data Analysis) of the manuscript.

4. It makes no sense to use graphs explaining a main effect in this case added mass ratio if this factor is interacting with straw particle size and compression displacement. The same applies to all figures.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the experimental data have been reanalyzed.

5. Eliminate the triple interaction, it is complicated to explain it.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the content related to triple interaction has been removed from both the table and the main body of the manuscript.

6. Once the information has been reanalyzed, the conclusions should be adjusted or confirmed in light of the new results.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the experimental data have been reanalyzed, and new results have been added to Section 4 (Conclusions) of the manuscript. In addition, we carefully checked the previous conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf