Performance Characterization of the UAV Chemical Application Based on CFD Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have carried out an interesting study to obtain the law of droplet drift and deposition controlling the variables of wind speed, pressure and spray height. In order to improve the manuscript, I include some comments and suggestion. Mayor revision: 1. I do not agree with the idea expressed in L 40-42. Although I understand the advantages of the chemical application with UAV, authors comment “the low operation efficiency and the not ideal control effect”. This general ideal should be more explained and need references, since there is a large amount of agricultural on ground machinery developed for precision agriculture that presents high precision and high efficiency in the treatments (automatic applications). In addition, nowadays I am not sure about the advantage in large-scale modern agriculture (L42), since the weight in a UAV is a key factor in the time of flight, and the applications of chemical products would suppose a considerable increase of weight that would reduce enormously the time of application. 2. I think authors have shown a general theoretical simulation taking into account the variation of environmental factors. Nevertheless, the characteristics of the vehicle and its weight have not been taken into account... What effect could these factors have on the calculations? 3. In the “Result and Discussion Section” the results were showed, but the discussion of these results is practically non-existent and there is no comparison with researches carried out by other authors. 4. In the “conclusion Section” revise both 2nd and 3rd conclusion. The sentences are difficult to understand. 5. The references of this work are very skewed to studies of Chinese researchers. More variability in the origin of the authors would be enriching for this work. Minor revision: 1. Revise the way units are shown throughout the entire manuscript. For example, m/s should be m s-1. 2. L36-37. I do not understand the expression “...in the world”. Do the authors mean “the most serious occurrence...”? 3. L71-72. Authors should mentioned that ANSYS ICEM is a software. 4. L 73. Authors mentioned that the height was set as 1.5m to simulate spraying, but this high is the highest, as three highs “0.5 m, 1 m and 1.5 m” were tested (L 88). 5. Figure 2 is a very detailed figure with 4 sub-figures. Nevertheless, there is no reference of most of the sub-figures in the manuscript. I consider Figure 2b is very complete and enough to represent the idea authors wan to show in the manuscript. I suggest to simply Figure 2 with only Figure 2b in a large size. 6. Figure 3 is so simple that can create confusion. Please, insert in the figure axes to show the droplets deposition in order to understand better the idea. 7. The first time authors referred to Figure 6 in the manuscript, in page 5, (the lines are no numbered in this part of the manuscript), do the authors refer to Figure 4? 8. Figures 5, 7 and 9. In order to a better understanding of the graphs, I suggest to include a vertical dotted line in the position of the nozzles (approximately in 2 m position) in order to compare more easily the effect of the droplet drift. 9. Table 4. Revise the style (font size) of the name of the first field. 10. Table 6. Each table should be read independently of the manuscript. I suggest to include footnote in this table to explain fields 1st, 2nd and 5th. 11. Revise [12] reference. All the references are in italics.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We deeply appreciate the time and great effort the reviewers spent in reviewing our manuscript entitled “Performance Characterization of the UAV Chemical Application Based on CFD Simulation” (ID: 515992). The comments are all important and very helpful for us to revise and improve our manuscript. We have considered these comments carefully and have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The reviewers’ comments have been responded in point-by-point manner and are listed as follows:
Reviewer 1 | |
Comment 1 | Lines 40-42 I do not agree with the idea expressed in L 40-42. Although I understand the advantages of the chemical application with UAV, authors comment “the low operation efficiency and the not ideal control effect”. This general ideal should be more explained and need references, since there is a large amount of agricultural on ground machinery developed for precision agriculture that presents high precision and high efficiency in the treatments (automatic applications). In addition, nowadays I am not sure about the advantage in large-scale modern agriculture (L42), since the weight in a UAV is a key factor in the time of flight, and the applications of chemical products would suppose a considerable increase of weight that would reduce enormously the time of application. |
Response | It is really true as you suggest that the expression of us is out of the way and we have re-written this part in lines 39-43 according to your suggestion. |
Comment 2 | I think authors have shown a general theoretical simulation taking into account the variation of environmental factors. Nevertheless, the characteristics of the vehicle and its weight have not been taken into account... What effect could these factors have on the calculations? |
Response | I am sorry that our research is a simulation based on DPM related to nozzle, which lacked the influence concerning the characteristics of the vehicle and its weight. It is also the emphasis of our further research. |
Comment 3 | Part 3 In the “Result and Discussion Section” the results were showed, but the discussion of these results is practically non-existent and there is no comparison with researches carried out by other authors. |
Response | We have added some details related to discussion in part 3.3 lines 278-291. |
Comment 4 | Part 4 In the “conclusion Section” revise both 2nd and 3rd conclusion. The sentences are difficult to understand. |
Response | We have re-written this part in lines 293-305. |
Comment 5 | The references of this work are very skewed to studies of Chinese researchers. |
Response | The references has been strengthened to [28] by adding some related international references from web of science. |
More variability in the origin of the authors would be enriching for this work | |
Comment 1 | Revise the way units are shown throughout the entire manuscript. For example, m/s should be m s-1. |
Response | We are very sorry for our incorrect writing in units and we have changed m/s, kg/s, kg/m3 |
Comment 2 | L36-37 I do not understand the expression “...in the world”. Do the authors mean “the most serious occurrence...”? |
Response | As your said, we have changed the expression to “the most” in lines 36. |
Comment 3 | L71-72 Authors should mentioned that ANSYS ICEM is a software. |
Response | Done. We have added this introduction for ANSYS ICEM in lines 73-74. |
Comment 4 | L 73 Authors mentioned that the height was set as 1.5m to simulate spraying, but this high is the highest, as three highs “0.5 m, 1 m and 1.5 m” were tested (L 88). |
Response | Done.We are very sorry for our negligence of missing two height. |
Comment 5 | Figure 2 is a very detailed figure with 4 sub-figures. Nevertheless, there is no reference of most of the sub-figures in the manuscript. I consider Figure 2b is very complete and enough to represent the idea authors want to show in the manuscript. I suggest to simply Figure 2 with only Figure 2b in a large size. |
Response | Figure 2 has been replaced by Figure 2b in a large size. |
Comment 6 | Figure 3 is so simple that can create confusion. Please, insert in the figure axes to show the droplets deposition in order to understand better the idea. |
Response | An axis of position (0 to 4 m) has been drawn in the figure to show the drift of droplet according to your suggestion. |
Comment 7 | Figure 4 The first time authors referred to Figure 6 in the manuscript, in page 5, (the lines are no numbered in this part of the manuscript), do the authors refer to Figure 4? |
Response | We are sorry for that we did not check title of this Figure and we have revised below lines 136. |
Comment 8 | Figures 5, 7 and 9 In order to a better understanding of the graphs, I suggest to include a vertical dotted line in the position of the nozzles (approximately in 2 m position) in order to compare more easily the effect of the droplet drift. |
Response | We are much obliged about your suggestion. Our idea can be conveyed more clearly by inputting a dotted line in figure 5, 7 and 9. |
Comment 9 | Table 4 Revise the style (font size) of the name of the first field. |
Response | Done. We have checked the style of your mention and revised in Table 4. |
Comment 10 | Table 6 Each table should be read independently of the manuscript. I suggest to include footnote in this table to explain fields 1st, 2nd and 5th. |
Response | We are much obliged about your suggestion. Our idea can be conveyed more clearly by inputting a dotted line in figure 5, 7 and 9. |
Comment 11 | Reference Revise [12] reference. All the references are in italics. |
Response | We are sorry for that we did not notice this wrong edit and it has been corrected. |
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.
We would like to express our great appreciation to editors and reviewers for the comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Hongze Li
6.1.2019
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
The paper shows a detailed analysis regarding droplet drift related to different environment parameters. Along the text, I find few inappropriate terms. The first one is at row 75: “Grids in the target area are encrypted to make the numerical simulation able to refine the research accurately”. I guess that ‘encrypted’, referred to the used mesh, would stay for something like “shrink”, in order to have finer spatial resolution. The second term appears first few rows below row 133. In this contest, the most used term is ‘nozzle’ (anyway, just used in other part of the paper) and in my opinion, should be replaced. Few tables need minor text adjusting.
As regard the Reference section, it could be appropriate (Agronomy is an International Journal) to have a search for similar task also in other than China country.
Kind Regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Performance Characterization of the UAV Chemical Application Based on CFD Simulation”. Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the response to your comments are as following:
Point 1: The first one is at row 75: “Grids in the target area are encrypted to make the numerical simulation able to refine the research accurately”. I guess that ‘encrypted’, referred to the used mesh, would stay for something like “shrink”, in order to have finer spatial resolution.
Response 1: We have rewritten this sentence according to your suggestion. Actually, we are finding a proper description for the intention of ‘encrypted’ until the appearance of your expression.
Point 2: The second term appears first few rows below row 133. In this contest, the most used term is ‘nozzle’ (anyway, just used in other part of the paper) and in my opinion, should be replaced. Few tables need minor text adjusting.
Response 2: We are sorry for our negligence of wrong format of text in tables and it have been adjusted.
Point 3: As regard the Reference section, it could be appropriate (Agronomy is an International Journal) to have a search for similar task also in other than China country.
Response 3: The references has been strengthened to [28] by adding some international references from web of science.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the efforts to improve the manuscript.
