Analysis and Optimization Test of the Peanut Seeding Process with an Air-Suction Roller Dibbler

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The purpose of this study is to optimize the performance of the peanut seeding device. The manuscript provides interesting experiments and obtains reliable working parameters. In order to improve the level of this article, I give some suggestions for revision.

1.         The background, purpose and significance of the research are fully stated in the abstract. However, the movement of peanut seeds is not described, which is part of the manuscript and should be stated in the abstract.

2.         The introduction section is well organized, by providing recent literature review and entail with the problem statement that is going to be address in the present study.

3.         Peanut planting patterns cannot be accurately represented by Figure 1. The font in the figure should also be changed because it is not clear.

4.         Line 131: "Internal" should be preceded by a space.

5.         The same unit symbols in the manuscript must be unified, please check the entire manuscript

6.         Line 252: Please delete a punctuation mark.

7.         Line 292: The formatting of the headings for the diagrams in the manuscript must be consistent

8.         The law of seed velocity variation was obtained through simulation, but these results were not closely related to the theoretical analysis in Part 2.4. Please add the discussion related to this section.

9.         It needs to be analyzed and discussed in terms of presenting the validity or credibility of the simulation model you developed.

10.      The simulation results show that the influences of the chock-block and dibbler-cover installation angles on the trajectory of the seed-feeding process. Bench test analyzed that the factors that affect the seeding pass rate，missed seeding rate and reseeding rate. Can the bench test verify the results of the simulation test?

11.      Line 383: The format of the symbol "X1" needs to be changed.

12.      Is the seeding pass rate of field test lower than that of bench test only due to mechanical vibration? What are the differences in test conditions between field test and bench test? What are the missed seeding rate and reseeding rate in the field trials? Whether it is higher than the missed seeding rate and reseeding rate of bench test.

13.      Views on the manuscript are fully discussed in Section 3.4. Necessary analysis should be carried out in combination with the previous research and the viewpoint of the manuscript in order to highlight the advantages and significance of the research work.

14.      The conclusion is very organized and detailed.

15.      Please check the format of the reference carefully. You need to insert Spaces in some places.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Many thanks for your kind comments. After reading your suggestions carefully, I would like to reply as follow word.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. In "2.4.1. Selection of key parameters for dibbler", it was determined that "the installation angle of the chock block directly affects the seeding trajectory and contact state of the seeds with the seed-separation tray and dibbler cover.". However, there is no mention of how the "the installation angles of the dibbler cover" are determined, so it is suggested to add the relevant content.

2. In the manuscript, "2.1 Agronomic requirements for growing peanuts on film" and "2.2 Structure and working principle of peanut film seeder" are less relevant to the main research content of this paper, and it is suggested to compress this part. Enhance the introduction of "dibbler cover" and "chock block" in "2.3. Structure and working principle of dibbler", and clearly mark them in the picture.

3. The image of "Figure 5.(a)" in the manuscript is not very readable, so we suggest to revise this image. Consider separating the force analysis and motion analysis instead of focusing on one picture. "Figure 8.(a)" shows unclear trajectory lines of the seed motion, and it is suggested to highlight them.

4. The terms "installation angle" and "mounting angle" appear in the text, whether they have the same meaning, if so, it is suggested to unify them. Note the singular and plural problems in the text, such as "angle" and "angles". Also check the whole text and revise any similar problems.

5. To improve the readability of the article, we suggest replacing "the installation angle of the chock block" with "IACB" and "the installation angles of the dibbler cover" should be replaced with "IADC". Also revise other words and phrases in the manuscript that can be simplified.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Many thanks for your kind comments. After reading your suggestions carefully, I would like to reply as follow word.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the abstract, The ground conditions and machine vibrations cause the problems of omission and reseeding, can the simulation truly reflect the ground conditions and machine vibration? If not, how can the simulation results show that the two installation angles can solve the reseeding and oversowing problems?

 

It is recommended to add to the Introduction the correlation between the installation angles of the chock block and dibbler cover and the smoothness of the seed entry from the seed chamber into the seed-guiding mechanism.

 

It is recommended to write in the last paragraph of the Introduction what the experimental factors of the paper are explored.

 

The parameters in Formula (1) are suggested to be marked in the diagram by means of schematic diagram.

 

L200 The height of the seed channel of the seed-guiding mechanism is h. Please add the label h in the figure.

 

Formula (9) cannot be obtained due to error in Formula (8).

 

This article studies an air-suction seed dispenser, and there is no airflow in EDEM, is it reasonable to use the software for simulation? Is the article analyzing the seed movement interval completely independent of airflow?

 

L247 the initial velocity of the seed-feeding point is 0.55 m/s. How was this value obtained?

 

L256 a sample of peanut seeds with a mass of 61.3 g. Please make verification of peanut seed quality data.

 

Please supplement the test method of bench test, such as orthogonal test.

 

How did the authors delineate the area where the seeds are located in Fig.8(b)?

 

The simulation test factor are the installation angles of chock-block and dibbler-cover. The effect of dibbler-cover installation angle on the seed-movement speed was not analyzed in section 3.1.2.

 

In section 3.1.1, which set of test parameters were used as a premise for the analysis of the seed trajectories? What is the significance of analyzing the trajectory under only one set of parameters when different parameters affect the seed trajectory?

 

Fig. 8(b) The time of area ⅠⅡ is within 0~0.1s, and 0~0.3s in Fig. 9, why is there such a big difference? Please give an explanation.

 

Fig. 9 is missing a legend.

 

It is suggested that the authors add the analysis of the reasons for the influence of parameters on the separation method, instead of just showing the experimental results.

 

Two models appear respectively in Table 5 and Table 6.

 

The bench test factors are 10, 15, 20° and 30, 45, 60° respectively. Figure 11 is obtained by connecting the corresponding data points. Please reflect the corresponding values of the test factors on the coordinate axis.

 

It is recommended to supplement the field test program in the Materials and Methods.

 

The authors are requested to ①supplement relevant environmental conditions such as field test soil, ②give the data obtained from the field trials.

 

The title is inconsistent with the abstract, it should be a performance study, and the abstract does not reflect the rules. The content of the article is experimental analysis and optimization, and the author is suggested to modify the title.

 

Some inconsistent names and expressions appear in the manuscript, which the authors are requested to check and correct themselves (such as mounting angle and installation angle; rule, law and principle, etc).

 

I would suggest the authors employ an English editor to assist in the manuscript preparation. Taking this approach would greatly help in helping the reviewers to determine the overall quality of the paper which is not possible at this time.

 

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Many thanks for your kind comments. After reading your suggestions carefully, I would like to reply as follow word.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

 Fig. 9 is missing a legend. I don't know what the three colored lines represent.

Author Response

 Q1：Fig. 9 is missing a legend. I don't know what the three colored lines represent.

Thanks for your kind reminder, I revised it in my new manuscript.