Water–Pesticide Integrated Micro-Sprinkler Design and Influence of Key Structural Parameters on Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see attached files
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
作者非常感谢审稿人提出的宝贵和有见地的评论，并感谢他们的努力。他们的评论无疑帮助我们提高了稿件的质量。我们仔细考虑了所有意见，并对稿件进行了彻底的修订，以满足他们的期望。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, a new integrated water-medicine integrated micro-nozzle was designed. According to the working principle of the sprinkler, the structural parameters affecting the irrigation performance and the spraying performance were selected. The influence of the structural parameters on the irrigation and spraying performance of the nozzle was studied, and the structural parameters of the micro-sprinkler were optimized. The research results provide an important theoretical basis for the practical application of sprinklers, which are innovative and practical. However, there are still some problems in this paper that need to be solved and corrected. The problems are as follows:
1. The title of this article does not fully cover the content of this article. The fourth section of the paper, which involves the optimization of the nozzle structure and the influence weight, is not mentioned in the title.
2. Section 2.1, some references are inappropriate selected, such as [9]-[13]. This article should be based on the application of water-pharmaceutical integration technology and the design and structure optimization of micro-sprinklers to cite typical literature.
3. Section 2.1, the description of the micro-sprinkler design part was not well combined with the picture content. It is suggested to correspond to each serial number in Figure 1 one by one, and add physical pictures and application illustrations.
4. Section 2.2, the experimental part, does not describe the parameters selected to evaluate the performance. In Section 2.2.2, it should be stated in the title or first paragraph that this test uses water as the test medium or a supplementary test to illustrate the point.
5. Section 3.1.1, Table 3 is recommended to be changed to pictures. The description of the differences and changes between indicators in this section should be visually expressed in the form of pictures.
6. It is recommended to add literature to some viewpoints, such as "Sprinkler Irrigation Application Intensity for Grape Planting in Different Soils" in Section 3.1.2 and "In the same flow rate, larger spray cone angle helps to improve pesticide spraying" performance and droplet coverage area of the nozzle, reducing system cost”and so on.
7. Section 3, the text part of the picture content and the text of the coordinate axis are repeated, it is recommended that the color of the coordinate axis and the line color should match, omit the text in the picture, or adjust the picture.
8. In Section 8.3.1.2, for the description of Figure 4, the key parts are not clearly stated. In addition, "when the angle of the refraction surface is 35°, the average watering intensity is 8.57 mm/h". I do not understand the meaning of this description.
9. In Section 3.2.2, there is less space for the description of the change of droplet diameter with factors and the degree of influence, and it is not clear whether the change changes with factors or with the test distance of the instrument. The 100cm test distance was said twice, and it is recommended to delete it.
10 In Section 10.3.2.3, the description of the influence of various factors on the relative particle size range of droplets was not well expressed, and the test distance for taking the peak value is not specified, and the reason and conclusion of the change are not specified.
Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the valuable and insightful comments made by the reviewers and would like to thank them for their efforts. Their comments have undoubtedly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments and the manuscript has been revised thoroughly to meet their expectations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General Comments:
- This manuscript evaluates the influence of the main structural parameters on the performance of irrigation and spraying pesticides.
- The language of the manuscript needs minor editing. In some places, sentences are too long to comprehend correctly. It is suggested that the authors may consult a professional English editor for improvement.
- In absence of line numbering reviewing became difficult.
Materials and Methods:
Fig. 1: Readers are not introduced to the terms “irrigation water model” and “Spraying pesticide model”. It will be good to introduce these terms first, then use them.
Further, mention the specifications of the ratio of water-pesticide mix. Fluid properties will vary with mix ratios.
Details on the pesticide concentration and other properties are also important, but not readily provided.
Results and Discussion
Table 9: What is referred to by the bold values in the table? Better to mention it as a footnote below the table.
References:
Ref. 1 seems incomplete.
In many places, [J] is mentioned. Please check
Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the valuable and insightful comments made by the reviewers and would like to thank them for their efforts. Their comments have undoubtedly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments and the manuscript has been revised thoroughly to meet their expectations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have indeed improved the article, I'm satisfied.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have well answered my questions and concerns. I think the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Agriculture.
