Design, Simulation and Experimentation of a Polythene Film Debris Recovery Machine in Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please consider the following checks of the work as proposals for the future:
- Creating an experimental stand to test various technological variants of obtaining residual foil and then industrial realization.
- The recycling equipment should have included breaking sensors so that the residual foil has large dimensions.
- The research should take into account the obtaining of residual / recycled sheets of PF film (Polythene Film) as large as possible, length x width so that the amount of microplastic resulting is as small and with less impurities as possible.
- Highlighting the amount of microplastic resulted in the operation of obtaining residual foil – experimental stand; microplastic is difficult to control and more dangerous can be highlighted only by a certain laser source.
- Inclusion in the foil of some natural fertilizers for the agricultural land and specific to each crop.
- The only valid solution is only the biodegradable foil version and the researches must be directed in this regard.
Important paper with the correct scientific analysis that can be published in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s proposals concerning our manuscript entitled “Design, Simulation and Experimentation of Polythene Film Debris Recovery Machine in Soil” (ID: applsci-1531117). Those proposals are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Thanks to the reviewer for the proposals on the future of this paper. According to the reviewer’s proposals, we will seriously consider and improve in the future work.
1.Response to proposal: (Creating an experimental stand to test various technological variants of obtaining residual foil and then industrial realization.)
Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we will create an experimental stand to test recovery rate and separation rate of obtaining residual foil and then industrial realization.
2.Response to proposal: (The recycling equipment should have included breaking sensors so that the residual foil has large dimensions.)
Response: It is really true as reviewer suggested that we will install breaking sensors in the recovery and transportation mechanisms so that the residual foil has large dimensions.
3.Response to proposal: (The research should take into account the obtaining of residual / recycled sheets of PF film (Polythene Film) as large as possible, length x width so that the amount of microplastic resulting is as small and with less impurities as possible.)
Response: We fully agree with the reviewer's proposals. We should optimize the recycling equipment and research new methods to obtain of residual / recycled sheets of PF film (Polythene Film) as large as possible, length x width so that the amount of microplastic resulting is as small and with less impurities as possible.
4.Response to proposal: (Highlighting the amount of microplastic resulted in the operation of obtaining residual foil – experimental stand; microplastic is difficult to control and more dangerous can be highlighted only by a certain laser source.)
Response: As Reviewer suggested that we should think deeply about these proposals.
5.Response to proposal: (Inclusion in the foil of some natural fertilizers for the agricultural land and specific to each crop.)
回应：感谢评审员的重要指导，在箔片中加入一些天然肥料用于农业用地并针对每种作物是制造新材料以取代塑料箔的有效方法。
6.对提案的回应：（唯一有效的解决方案是仅可生物降解的箔版本，研究必须在这方面进行指导。
回应：亟待创新生物降解箔技术，攻克技术难关。在引言中，讨论了这个问题。
特别感谢您的良好建议。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper is presenting experimental trial on mechanized recovery of thin agricultural polythene film PF with use of prototype debris collector equipped with optionally three types of elastic teeth. In first step authors were looking into recovery rate of PF individually for each type of elastic teeth for various distances between elastic teeth and for various rotational speed of the conveying device. Then authors were looking into effect of the rotational speed on the throwing horizontal distance of PF at different inclination angles, effect of the rotational speed the separation rate of residual PF at different inclination angles, effect of different distances between elastic teeth on the recovery and separation rate of PF. Results then were use to create simple mathematical model for separation and recovery rates of which theoretical values were finally compared to values measured at field. Discussion and conclusions are about achieved results.
Paper is structured well however experiment was designed just for one type of machinery (debris collector) and only three types of elastic teeth what makes all conclusions rather limited only to this specific set-up.
Specific comments:
- page 4, paragraphs 3 and 4 - commercial manufacturer's names in text, please avoid commercial names in paper
- page 6, line 4 from bottom above fig 4. - the experimental data was obtained by collecting the residual PF in the soil within 0-150mm.... I assume authors are meaning 150mm depth. Please clarify.
- page 7, Fig. 5 speed in rpm graph (a) is shown between 60-80-100 whilst for (b) and (c) only for 60-80. I believe 100 is missing on (b) and (c). Please clarify
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Design, Simulation and Experimentation of Polythene Film Debris Recovery Machine in Soil” (ID: applsci-1531117). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1.Response to comment: (page 4, paragraphs 3 and 4 - commercial manufacturer's names in text, please avoid commercial names in paper.)
Response: We have revised this part according to the reviewer’s suggestion. We have deleted commercial name in page 4, paragraphs 3 and 4.
2.Response to comment: (page 6, line 4 from bottom above fig 4. - the experimental data was obtained by collecting the residual PF in the soil within 0-150mm.... I assume authors are meaning 150mm depth. Please clarify.)
Response: It is really true as reviewer assumed that authors are meaning 150mm depth. The revised portion has been marked in red in the paper.
3.Response to comment: (page 7, Fig. 5 speed in rpm graph (a) is shown between 60-80-100 whilst for (b) and (c) only for 60-80. I believe 100 is missing on (b) and (c). Please clarify.)
Response: It is really true as reviewer believed that 100 is missing on (b) and (c) in fig. 5. We have modified fig. 5.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The experiment provide the need to remove PF from arable soils.
Numbers for lines must be entered for the entire paper so that comments can be made
Pg 2 experiment carried out not conducted
Pg 2 Light intensity is very sufficient - Light intensity is sufficient
Pg 3 ….3500 mm, 1200 mm and 1500 mm for its length - 3500 mm, 1500 mm and 1200mm for its length
Pg 4 earth –soil
Pg 4 2.2.1. line 4 cut one bracket
Thrice – three
Pg 12 Discussion – pay close attention to the division of words into syllables, from a grammatical point of view (recovered, development) and the conclusions as well ……
The discussions need to be much deeper, not supported by other previous research
It would have been interesting if the collected PF area had also been determined, according to the distance between the teeth and the angle of inclination, starting from the hypothesis that the foil remains are spread evenly in the soil.
Pg 12 Conclusion This paper not this study….
Pg 13 Conclusions 1 and 3 they are too general
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
亲爱的编辑和审稿人：
感谢您的来信和审稿人对我们题为"土壤中聚乙烯薄膜碎片回收机的设计，模拟和实验"的手稿（ID：applsci-1531117）的评论。这些意见对论文的修改和改进都具有重要意义和十分有益的意义，对我们的研究具有重要的指导意义。我们仔细研究了评论意见，并作了更正，我们希望得到批准。修改后的部分在纸张上标有红色。论文中的主要更正和对审稿人评论的回应是流畅的：
1.对评论的回应：（整篇论文必须输入行数，以便发表评论。
响应：已为整篇论文输入了行数。
2.对评论的回应：（第2页实验进行未进行。
回应：实验在中国新疆的一片棉田中进行。
3.对评论的回应：（Pg 2 光强非常充足-光强充足）
回应：我们根据审稿人的建议修改了这部分。修订后的部分在文件中标有红色。
4.对评论的回应：（第3页......长度为3500 mm，1200 mm和1500 mm - 长度为3500 mm，1500 mm和1200mm）
回应：我们根据审稿人的建议修改了这部分。修订后的部分在文件中标有红色。
5.对评论的回应：（第4页地球-土壤）
回应：我们根据审稿人的建议修改了这部分。修订后的部分在文件中标有红色。
6.对评论的回应：（第4页2.2.1.第4行切开一个支架和三个 - 三个）
回应：我们在Pg 4 2.2.1中削减了一个支架。第 4 行。三次已改为三次。修订后的部分在文件中标有红色。
7.对评论的回应：（第12页讨论——从语法角度（恢复，发展）和结论，密切关注单词的音节划分......讨论需要更深入，而不是其他先前研究的支持）
回应：我们根据审稿人的建议修改了讨论。修订后的部分在文件中标有红色。
8.对评论的回应：（第12页 结论 本文不是本研究....）
回应：本研究已改为本文。修订后的部分在文件中标有红色。
9.对评论的回应：（第13页 结论1和3都过于笼统）
回应：我们根据审稿人的建议修订了第13页结论1和3。修订后的部分在文件中标有红色。
特别感谢您的好评。
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Regarding to the manuscript Design, simulation and experimentation of polythene film debris recovery machine in soil, many technical and grammatical improvements have been made, but the discussions are not supported by previous research (why? Where? It is necessary? Needs? We can?).
It is also necessary to pay close attention to the division of words into syllables. There are mistakes.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Design, Simulation and Experimentation of Polythene Film Debris Recovery Machine in Soil” (ID: applsci-1531117). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Response to comment: The discussions are not supported by previous research (why? Where? It is necessary? Needs? We can?). It is also necessary to pay close attention to the division of words into syllables. There are mistakes.
Response: Based on the results of this paper and previous research, we have revised the discussions and make certain inferences. We have added appropriate references in discussion section. The revised portion has been marked in red in the paper.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
