Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Wancheng Dong 1,
  • Xiongye Zhang 1 and
  • Lixin Zhang 1,2,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Elio Romano

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study primarily employs the CFD-DEM gas-solid coupling model to simulate the airflow and particle transport processes, with the goal of optimizing a pneumatic fertilizer distribution system for cotton cultivation. The research focuses on enhancing the uniformity and stability of fertilizer application by optimizing the design of the fertilizer dispensing device, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the fertilization process. However, there are still several issues related to the writing and structure of the paper. The following points highlight the key areas for improvement:

 

  1. In the introduction, avoid excessive repetition of background information. Focus on the core issues and objectives of the research, rather than listing a large amount of background information.

  2. The discussion and conclusion sections overlap in content, and the writing style is quite similar. It is recommended to deepen the analysis and comparison of the research results in the discussion section.

  3. The conclusion should be concise. It is not advisable to write it as a single paragraph. Instead, summarize the key points in bullet points, and aim to make it as concise as possible.

  4. To improve the clarity and logical flow of the manuscript, it is recommended to revise the structure according to the traditional academic format, especially reorganizing the paper into the following sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

  5. Since the manuscript focuses on optimizing an existing feeder design, does it compare experimental data before and after optimization, particularly with regard to changes in fertilizer distribution uniformity and stability? If not, could a comparative analysis be added to strengthen the validity and persuasiveness of the optimized design?

  6. The manuscript uses "guide flow vanes" and "outlet ribbed chamber structure" as design solutions. It would be beneficial to include a theoretical analysis or provide supporting references in the discussion to further clarify how these structures improve airflow guidance and fertilizer distribution uniformity.

  7. The manuscript lacks line numbers, which makes it difficult for reviewers to reference specific locations when raising issues.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comments 1: In the introduction, avoid excessive repetition of background information. Focus on the core issues and objectives of the research, rather than listing a large amount of background information.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your professional suggestions. In the introduction section, we may have indeed provided too much detailed background information, failing to adequately highlight the core research questions and objectives. Based on your advice, we will revise the introduction by reducing the introduction of background information on pneumatic fertilization technology and increasing the content related to the design of the feeder and its simulation. This will clearly emphasize the core research questions and objectives. Specific revisions can be seen in the revised manuscript. We will ensure that the introduction section includes the necessary background knowledge while quickly guiding readers to the theme and purpose of the research. Thank you once again for your review and guidance. We will strive to improve the quality of the paper.

 

Comments 2:The discussion and conclusion sections overlap in content, and the writing style is quite similar. It is recommended to deepen the analysis and comparison of the research results in the discussion section.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your thorough review and valuable comments on our paper. Upon careful examination, we found that you pointed out the overlapping content in the discussion and conclusion sections, which is indeed an area we need to improve. We recognize that the analysis and comparison of the research results in the discussion section were indeed not sufficiently in-depth. In response, we will revise the discussion and conclusion sections to ensure that they each have their own focus and avoid content overlap. The discussion section will primarily focus on in-depth analysis of the research results, comparison with existing research, and possible explanations for the causes. The conclusion section will concisely and clearly summarize the research findings and point out their practical significance and application prospects.

 

Comments 3:The conclusion should be concise. It is not advisable to write it as a single paragraph. Instead, summarize the key points in bullet points, and aim to make it as concise as possible.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. I fully agree with your perspective. In response, I will revise the conclusion section by organizing it into numbered points (1, 2, 3) to present key information, enhance the clarity of the article, and ensure that the conclusion is concise and focused. Such adjustments will help readers read more clearly.

 

Comments 4:To improve the clarity and logical flow of the manuscript, it is recommended to revise the structure according to the traditional academic format, especially reorganizing the paper into the following sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

Response 4: Your suggestions are very professional, highlighting the importance of a clear structure and logical flow in academic papers. When I first started writing this paper, I referred to the structures of other academic papers, most of which followed this traditional format, but I failed to adjust mine accordingly. Now, based on your advice, I will revise the structure of the article to follow the traditional academic format by reorganizing the existing content into the following five sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. This will help readers better understand my research content and findings. Specific revisions can be found in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 5:Since the manuscript focuses on optimizing an existing feeder design, does it compare experimental data before and after optimization, particularly with regard to changes in fertilizer distribution uniformity and stability? If not, could a comparative analysis be added to strengthen the validity and persuasiveness of the optimized design?

Response 5: Your questions are very professional, and the comparison of results before and after optimization is crucial for verifying the performance improvement of the feeder. Therefore, during the performance bench test, we compared the results before and after optimization. The results showed that the performance was improved after optimization, with specific indicators as follows: A comparison of tests before and after optimization revealed that "multiple bench test results indicate that the coefficient of variation of the feeder after optimization is 13.30%. Compared with the coefficient of variation of fertilizer discharge stability of the feeder before structural parameter optimization, which was 14.89%, the stability performance of the feeder after optimization is significantly improved. The coefficient of variation among branches is 3.96%," which is a 19.3% reduction compared with the coefficient of variation among branches of the feeder before structural parameter optimization, which was 4.91%. The stability performance of the feeder after optimization is significantly improved. We have reviewed this section and realized that it may have only listed the experimental data and verified the accuracy of the simulation, lacking comparative data. We have already added supplementary explanations. Thank you again for your review and suggestions. This content is very important for the paper, and I will do my utmost to improve the manuscript. You can see the specific revisions in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 6：.The manuscript uses "guide flow vanes" and "outlet ribbed chamber structure" as design solutions. It would be beneficial to include a theoretical analysis or provide supporting references in the discussion to further clarify how these structures improve airflow guidance and fertilizer distribution uniformity.

Response 6: Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing insightful and professional feedback. I will make modifications based on your suggestions and provide some descriptions here. The manuscript selects the design scheme combining "guide vanes" and "outlet ribbed chamber structure," which is a crucial part of the article. However, the content focuses more on the optimization of structural parameters. Therefore, in Section 2. Feeder Operating Principle and Structural/2.2 Feeder Structural, I have provided a relatively brief introduction to the principles and reasons for selecting these two design schemes for the feeder mechanism. Based on your advice, I will enhance the theoretical analysis of the working principles of these two structures in the structural selection and design section, as well as in the "Discussion" section of the paper. Furthermore, I will use the results of simulation experiments to further elucidate and verify how these structures improve airflow guidance and the uniformity of fertilizer distribution. Specific revisions can be seen in the revised manuscript and the track changes.

 

Comments 7:The manuscript lacks line numbers, which makes it difficult for reviewers to reference specific locations when raising issues.

Response 7: I apologize for the oversight regarding the line numbering, which was indeed a basic mistake. I will add continuous line numbering following the template of this journal to help the editors and reviewers provide clearer suggestions.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1、from the point of view of the content, the paper is mainly aimed at the design of the new feeder of the cotton pneumatic fertilizer machine, and the topic should be modified accordingly.

2. The research status is not in-depth enough, what is the particularity of the feeder of cotton pneumatic fertilizer applicator compared with other crops, and what is the current research status? It is not carefully combed, and it is suggested to supplement and improve.

3、 the chart is not beautiful enough, not clear, the size of the text in the picture is inconsistent. Pay attention to optimizing the chart to make it more beautiful.

4、 there are a lot of software names in the paper, whether they are legitimate software, if not, it is best not to appear in the paper software names.

5. The format of Table 3 is confused.

6、 the discussion should also explain the limitations of this design and future improvement direction.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comments 1：from the point of view of the content, the paper is mainly aimed at the design of the new feeder of the cotton pneumatic fertilizer machine, and the topic should be modified accordingly.

Response 1: Thank you very much for reviewing our paper and providing professional feedback. I agree with your observation that the selection of the design scheme involving "diversion vanes" and "outlet ribbed chamber structure" is a crucial part of the article. However, the content may have placed more emphasis on the structural parameter optimization under this scheme. Therefore, to highlight the feeder structure, I propose to revise the title to "Study on Structure Design and Parameter Optimization of a Diversion Rifled Feeder Based on CFD-DEM," which aligns more closely with the research content and theme of the paper.

 

Comments 2：The research status is not in-depth enough, what is the particularity of the feeder of cotton pneumatic fertilizer applicator compared with other crops, and what is the current research status? It is not carefully combed, and it is suggested to supplement and improve.

Response 2: Thank you very much for reviewing our research work and providing valuable feedback. I will enhance and supplement the introduction section with a more in-depth analysis of the feeder for the pneumatic cotton fertilizer collector and distributor, including its structural design, differences from feeders used for other crops, and an analysis of the current status of feeders both domestically and internationally. Based on this, we will summarize the existing research, pointing out its problems and deficiencies, to provide orientation and basis for our research. Your suggestions are crucial for improving the quality of our paper. Thank you once again. Specific revisions can be seen in the revised manuscript and the track changes.

 

Comments 3： the chart is not beautiful enough, not clear, the size of the text in the picture is inconsistent. Pay attention to optimizing the chart to make it more beautiful.

Response 3: We fully agree with your view that figures and tables are crucial in a paper. In response to your suggestions, we have replaced the figures with unclear images, inconsistent font sizes, and those containing Chinese characters, such as Figures 2 and 6. These adjustments are essential for enhancing the readability and rigor of the paper.

 

Comments 4：there are a lot of software names in the paper, whether they are legitimate software, if not, it is best not to appear in the paper software names.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your thorough review. We fully understand your concern about the legality of software names, which is an important aspect of ensuring academic integrity and rigor. Indeed, the article mentions software names such as EDEM 2020 and ANSYS Fluent 20.2, which are primarily used for simulation and data processing. However, we also recognize that mentioning software names in an academic context requires particular caution to avoid any potential copyright or legality issues. Therefore, we have made appropriate modifications by minimizing the mention of specific software and their version numbers. When it is necessary to mention these software, we ensure that they are well-known, legitimate, and widely used tools. Once again, thank you for your review and valuable suggestions. We look forward to your further guidance.

 

Comments 5：The format of Table 3 is confused.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your thorough review. We have examined and revised the tables and their contents accordingly.

 

Comments 6：the discussion should also explain the limitations of this design and future improvement direction.

Response 6: We acknowledge that the discussion section lacked an in-depth analysis of the design limitations and a clear elaboration of future improvement directions. In response, we will add a section in the discussion to address the limitations of our research and, based on the analysis of the current design limitations, propose specific future improvement directions. This is significant for improving the structure of the paper and enhancing the research value. Specific revisions can be seen in the revised manuscript and the track changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes an innovative approach to optimise the design of pneumatic fertiliser distributors for cotton using coupled CFD-DEM (Computational Fluid Dynamics and Discrete Element Method) simulations. The study provides a detailed analysis of key structural parameters and their interactions, supported by simulation models and experimental tests. The work makes a significant contribution to improving the accuracy and stability of fertiliser distribution. 

The introduction contextualises the problem and the importance of uniform fertiliser distribution well, but lacks a critical comparison with existing studies. I suggest including a more detailed discussion of the gaps in previous research and how the present study fills these gaps.

The objectives are clear but could be further explained with an emphasis on the practical implications of the results. I suggest describing how optimised design influences sustainability and efficiency in agricultural production.

The methodology is very clearly written, the configuration of simulation parameters is complete, but an explanation of why certain parameters, such as mesh size, were chosen would be helpful. I suggest a detailed justification for critical parameters (e.g. time intervals, flow velocity). The section on Box-Behnken experiments is well described, but the choice of experimental factor levels could be better explained. I suggest including a discussion of the reasons for the specific choice of factors (e.g. number of guides and angle of contraction). The experimental results show the effectiveness of the optimised model, but there is no in-depth analysis of the cases where the results do not perfectly match the simulations. The authors should discuss the possible sources of error between the experimental data and the simulations.

- Figures 7-10: The figures are useful, but the captions could be more descriptive to facilitate understanding. I suggest adding interpretations of the figures, explaining how the results shown support the conclusions.

- Table 6: Presents key findings but could benefit from comparison with other studies or technologies. I suggest including a comparison with the performance of other fertiliser delivery systems.

The discussion is solid, but lacks a critical analysis of the limitations of the work, such as the applicability of the model under different conditions. It would be better to include a section on the limitations of the model and possible future research directions.

The conclusions summarise the results well, but do not emphasise enough the contribution of the work to agricultural sustainability.   I suggest highlighting how optimised design can reduce waste and increase fertiliser efficiency.

Overall, the manuscript is a significant contribution to the design and optimisation of pneumatic fertiliser distributors. With minor revisions to improve clarity and broaden the discussion, the paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

 

 

Comments 1：The introduction contextualises the problem and the importance of uniform fertiliser distribution well, but lacks a critical comparison with existing studies. I suggest including a more detailed discussion of the gaps in previous research and how the present study fills these gaps.

Response 1: Thank you for your review and valuable suggestions. You pointed out that while the introduction section effectively elaborates on the problem and the importance of uniform fertilization, it lacks a critical comparison of existing research, which is indeed an area for improvement. After revisiting our introduction, we have revised it to include a summary discussion and critical comparison of existing research. This will more clearly demonstrate the unique value and contributions of our study.

 

Comments 2：The objectives are clear but could be further explained with an emphasis on the practical implications of the results. I suggest describing how optimised design influences sustainability and efficiency in agricultural production.

Response 2: Thank you for your review and valuable suggestions. By elaborating on how the optimized design impacts the sustainability and efficiency of agricultural production, we can more comprehensively demonstrate the importance and potential value of this research. Therefore, following your advice, we have made some supplementary explanations in the introduction and discussion sections. These additions and clarifications will make the research objectives clearer and more specific, enabling a more accurate conveyance of the practical significance and potential value of this study. Thank you once again for your review and valuable suggestions. We will carefully revise the manuscript and look forward to your further guidance.

 

Comments 3：The methodology is very clearly written, the configuration of simulation parameters is complete, but an explanation of why certain parameters, such as mesh size, were chosen would be helpful. I suggest a detailed justification for critical parameters (e.g. time intervals, flow velocity). The section on Box-Behnken experiments is well described, but the choice of experimental factor levels could be better explained. I suggest including a discussion of the reasons for the specific choice of factors (e.g. number of guides and angle of contraction). The experimental results show the effectiveness of the optimised model, but there is no in-depth analysis of the cases where the results do not perfectly match the simulations. The authors should discuss the possible sources of error between the experimental data and the simulations.

Response 3: Your review is exceptionally thorough, and your comments are highly specific and professional. In response to your mention of the selection of simulation parameters such as mesh size, we will supplement the information to make it more comprehensive and enhance readability. Additionally, regarding the choice of structural parameters and their specific numerical ranges in the Box-Behnken experimental design that you highlighted, we will provide detailed supplementary explanations in that section. We will elaborate on the importance of these structural parameters to performance through methods such as preliminary experiments, and how we determined the values of these parameters based on experimental conditions and data requirements. Furthermore, it is crucial to explain the errors, and we will further interpret and analyze the possible causes of errors in the original "4.2.3 Feeder Structural Parameter Optimization" section. We believe that through these modifications and improvements, our research will become more rigorous and scientific.

Comments 4：- Figures 7-10: The figures are useful, but the captions could be more descriptive to facilitate understanding. I suggest adding interpretations of the figures, explaining how the results shown support the conclusions.

Response 4: Thank you for your professional advice. I agree with your observation that the elaboration and analysis of the simulation results in section "3.3 Simulation Results" are relatively scarce. I will provide specific explanations and analyses regarding the simulation results. By adding descriptive and explanatory content, the charts and tables will become more comprehensible and better support our conclusions.

 

Comments 5：- Table 6: Presents key findings but could benefit from comparison with other studies or technologies. I suggest including a comparison with the performance of other fertiliser delivery systems.

Response 5: Thank you for your review and valuable suggestions. I fully agree with your perspective that incorporating a performance comparison with other fertilizer delivery systems would provide a more comprehensive demonstration of the uniqueness and advantages of our research. However, due to the significant differences in the methods of various fertilizer delivery systems, it is not feasible to conduct an accurate and unified quantitative comparison. Therefore, we have added a brief comparison specifically focusing on the pneumatic fertilizer delivery method and the feeder, hoping to provide some reference value to readers and other researchers.

 

Comments 6：The discussion is solid, but lacks a critical analysis of the limitations of the work, such as the applicability of the model under different conditions. It would be better to include a section on the limitations of the model and possible future research directions.

Response 6: Indeed, we lacked a critical analysis of the limitations of our research in the discussion section. Therefore, we will add this content to the discussion, addressing topics such as the applicability of the simulation models and structural optimizations, highlighting factors that may have influenced the results, and elaborating on directions for future research. This will better provide valuable references and insights for readers.

 

Comments 7：The conclusions summarise the results well, but do not emphasise enough the contribution of the work to agricultural sustainability.   I suggest highlighting how optimised design can reduce waste and increase fertiliser efficiency.

Response 7: We fully agree with your perspective and plan to make modifications as per your suggestions. We will add a new paragraph in the conclusion section specifically emphasizing the positive impact of the optimized design on agricultural sustainability, particularly in effectively reducing fertilizer waste and improving fertilizer efficiency, thereby highlighting the core value of our research. This will ensure that the conclusion section not only summarizes the research findings but also underscores the significant contributions of our work to agricultural sustainability. We believe that with these modifications, the conclusion section will be more complete and will more comprehensively demonstrate the value and significance of our research. Thank you once again for your review and valuable suggestions. We will carefully make the necessary changes and look forward to your further guidance.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All has been modified, no problem.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and approval of my revised manuscript. Your review and suggestions have effectively improved the quality of the paper. Thank you again for your efforts.