Biotribological Characteristic of Peanut Harvesting Impact-Friction Contact under Different Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the author's effort in preparing this manuscript. The overall presentation was good, except for some minor writing and presentation errors. Please check the comments in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. The World file of response to reviewer comments are added in the attachment, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Notes and comments are included in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. The World file of response to reviewer comments are added in the attachment, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- The word “biotribological behaviour” could be confusing.

- Introduction:  Other studies carried out studying fruit friction damage could have been revised.

Other studies about peanut damage evolution could have been included.

It should be clarified how peanuts are harvested in China and the two steps process (digging and picking) should be explained. The materials of the digging and picking machinery should be indicated and compared to the operation of the proposed testing device. The relation between the real digging and picking process and the designed testing device should be explained. It is not clear if the designed friction testing device is related to the digging or the picking operation.

When is the peanut damage produced during the harvesting operation? Is it mostly produced by friction, compression or impact? Which are the damage levels accepted? How is it produced? How is it measured?

Reference [7] is not really referred to peanut damage.

Lines 38-40: this sentence should be based on a reference from the literature.

Lines 57-58:  “However, no study investigating the mechanism of peanut harvesting has been reported”. This sentence is not correct.

 

The objective of the study is not clear.

 

- Material and methods:

Lines 99-100: this explanation (more extended) should be explained in the introduction.

Figure 2: the working details of the prototype are not clear.

Could the testing devise be compared to the real harvesting process? Or is it only a device to measure friction?

The device is anly measuring friction, why is it called “impact-friction”.

The explanation about the test with real peanuts is not clear. How has the peanut damage measured?

Why is Table 2 in M&M section?

- Results:

Figure 4 is irrelevant, different materials have different friction coefficients.

The contribution of the tomography to the objective is not clear.

Figure 6 and 7: an statistical analysis should be addressed-

The ANOVA shown in Table 3 is not clear (variables, factor…).

Figure 10 is not clearly explained.

Lines 469-471: how was the peanut damage measured?

 

- Conclusions:

Thera are not clear and useful conclusions related to the harvesting process and the harvesting machinery.

The usefulness of the study is not explained.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. The World file of response to reviewer comments are added in the attachment, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

1) Some of the comments have been carefully addressed. However, some other suggestions have not been clearly responded.

 

Point 2: Introduction:  Other studies carried out studying fruit friction damage could have been revised.

Response 2: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, the studies about fruit friction damage has been carried out and added in introduction. The revisions in the manuscript are as follows:

Only ine new reference have been added. Other studied refered to friction and impact tests in peanuts an similar products should be added in order to undestand the advantages of the test carried about in the presented manuscript.

Examples of some of the posiible references (physical properties of peanuts and friction tests):

Akcali, A. Ince & E. Guzel (2006) Selected Physical Properties of Peanuts, International Journal of Food Properties, 9:1, 25-37, DOI: 10.1080/10942910500471636

DK Gojiya1, UD Dobariya, PA Pandya and KM Gojiya. 2020. Studies on Physical Properties of Peanut Seed. ACTA SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE, 4(3) DOI: 10.31080/ASAG.2020.04.0814

S Busono, A ISHIHARA, M IWASAKI. 1992.  Field Test of Digger Screw Type Peanut Harvester and Investigation of the Physical Properties of Peanuts. 1992, 54(4): 77-87.  https://doi.org/10.11357/jsam1937.54.4_77

2) The objective of the study is "This study provides a reference for designing and selecting parameters of peanut harvesting equipment". However, no clear specific parameters have been provided as a results from the study.

3) The conclusion references for selecting the theoretical parameters of peanut mechanical harvesting equipment design should be clearly provided. After the extended experiment presented, only the recomendation about the range of friction coefficient (0.182~0.187)  are proposed in the conclusions. It is crucial to indicated the recommended ranges and compared them (considereing the differences in the tests) to the ones obtained in previous works.

4) The usefulness of some of the Figures is not clearly explained and the Figure caption information is not clear (for example, Figure 10, which is a)... and what is the meaning of the colours?; Figure 11, which is a), b), c) ...f)?; Figure 12).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. The World file of response to reviewer comments are added in the attachment, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf