Development of Automatic Accumulating Equipment for Roller-Type Onion Pot-Seeding Machine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors did an excellent job on development of the automatic loading equipment for roller-type onion pot seeding machine. Article is well structured and contains detail information as needed. Here comments for the authors.
Comment 1 : Page 4 loading plate: Authors needs to add some dimensions for each component so that reader can understand the size of the component.
Comment 2 : Page 6 line 125: Author mentioned that loading plate is slightly shorter than stopper bracket. Author needs to show some dimensions to this section as well. Please include additional view (side view) in figure 6 for better visualization.
Comment 3: Page 6 - alarm bell: author needs to add some number such as what is the maximum loading capacity, at what load alarm will ring and why?
Comment 4: Results section 3.1. – Authors do not need to show figures for all the treatment rather author can show one set of results for readers to visualize and describe the trend in different treatments.
Author Response
To reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper is improved by your comments.
We modified the paper following your comments, and our responds to the comments are as follows: (all the changes are expressed in red color)
Point 1: Page 4 loading plate: Authors needs to add some dimensions for each component so that reader can understand the size of the component.
Response 1: Dimension information for the pot tray (Figure 4) and elevator plate (Figure 3) were added. (line 101 - 102)
Point 2: Page 6 line 125: Author mentioned that loading plate is slightly shorter than stopper bracket. Author needs to show some dimensions to this section as well. Please include additional view (side view) in figure 6 for better visualization.
Response 2: The side view for lateral size of each component is included in Figure 7. (line 139)
Point 3: Page 6 - alarm bell: author needs to add some number such as what is the maximum loading capacity, at what load alarm will ring and why?
Response 3: In the alarm bell, the buzzer is designed to get pressed when an elevator plate with four pot trays ascends. More than five pot trays make it difficult to move at once, and excessive deformations are occurred by self- weight. This expression was added in the paper. (line 143 – 145)
Point 4: Results section 3.1. – Authors do not need to show figures for all the treatment rather author can show one set of results for readers to visualize and describe the trend in different treatments.
Response 4: We deleted excessive Figures, and only one Figure that clearly represents the results was remained. (line 227 - 229)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors described a device to accumulate three or more pot trays filled with a pot-seeding machine in order to move they in one time and to reduce repeated motions of workers.
This device is modular and it constitute the final section of a pot-seeding line both existing and new.
In the study the Authors comprise a research to individuate the best operating condition of the device in order to minimize seed losses.
Overall, the paper is interesting, but the research activity have not introduced innovations in the scientific knowledge. They use a standard methodology and the statistical analysis is separately carried out for each principal factor, without put in evidence if there are significant differences in their interaction.
In consequence, the paper need significant adjustment to improve its quality.
Specific comments
The title of the paper should be changed. The equipment do not carried out any load operation. In my opinion, it is an accumulator of pot trays. Furthermore, at first time, the denomination “automatic loading equipment” gives the idea of an automatic feeder of the seeding line.
At line 81 and where it occurs, for the same reasons indicated before, I suggest to change “loading plate” in “elevator plate”.
At line 104 the phrase “when the pot tray is accurately placed on the loading plate” should be deleted.
At lines 194-195 the Authors assess that “the pot tray movement speed … is 0.075 m/s”, but considering the data reported in the table 1, in my opinion, this forward velocity do not consent to reach the operation capacity of 360 pot trays/h. The Authors must confirm these data.
At line 195 the reference style does not respect the publisher indications.
At line 206 the Authors do not refer if the pot trays were checked after the seeding device and before the studied accumulator equipment. This is an important activity in order to assure that there are not empty cells due to the seeding machine failure.
Figures 15-21 are excessive. Only some examples of the most significant pot-trays are sufficient.
At line 259 the Authors the analysis of variance ANOVA even if there are two independent variables. The MANOVA is more appropriated in order to put in evidence the presence at least of the first order interactions.
At line 261, on the base of the F test result (table 4), the significance level is at 1%, not at 10% as reported by the Authors.
In the tables 3 and 4 the titles of the second and third column are inverted.
Finally, it is evident that all the tests were carried out without cover the seeds by means of the hopper 3. However, the presence of the soil over the seeds can modify the result obtained and others operative conditions should be searched. The conclusions must be into account this aspect.
Furthermore, the references are limited.
Author Response
To reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper is improved by your comments.
We modified the paper following your comments, and our responds to the comments are as follows: (all the changes are expressed in red color)
Point 1: The title of the paper should be changed. The equipment do not carried out any load operation. In my opinion, it is an accumulator of pot trays. Furthermore, at first time, the denomination “automatic loading equipment” gives the idea of an automatic feeder of the seeding line.
Response 1: The title is changed to “Development of Automatic Accumulating Equipment for Roller-Type Onion Pot-Seeding Machine”, instead of “Development of Automatic Loading Equipment for Roller-Type Onion Pot-Seeding Machine”. Also, the word of “load” is changed to “accumulate” in the paper.
Point 2: At line 81 and where it occurs, for the same reasons indicated before, I suggest to change “loading plate” in “elevator plate”.
Response 2: The word “loading plate” is changed to “elevator plate”. (line 82)
Point 3: At line 104 the phrase “when the pot tray is accurately placed on the loading plate” should be deleted.
Response 3: The phase is deleted (line 106).
Point 4: At lines 194-195 the Authors assess that “the pot tray movement speed … is 0.075 m/s”, but considering the data reported in the table 1, in my opinion, this forward velocity do not consent to reach the operation capacity of 360 pot trays/h. The Authors must confirm these data.
Response 4: The pot trays are fed into the seeding machine continuously with the feeding speed of 360 pot trays/h. The 5 ~ 6 pot trays are located in the seeding line of the machine simultaneously. We checked the capacity and confirmed that the feeding speed is right.
Point 5: At line 195 the reference style does not respect the publisher indications.
Response 5: The reference style was revised as follow the publisher indications (line 201)
Point 6: At line 206 the Authors do not refer if the pot trays were checked after the seeding device and before the studied accumulator equipment. This is an important activity in order to assure that there are not empty cells due to the seeding machine failure.
Response 6: The seeding rate of the pot tray after the seeding device was checked before the tests, and the results showed 100% seeding rate. Thus, the empty cells of pot trays are due to the accumulating process. This expression was added in the corresponding part with the related Figure. (line 215 – 220)
Point 7: Figures 15-21 are excessive. Only some examples of the most significant pot-trays are sufficient.
Response 7: We deleted excessive Figures, and only one Figure that clearly represents the results was remained. (line 227- 229)
Point 8: At line 259 the Authors the analysis of variance ANOVA even if there are two independent variables. The MANOVA is more appropriated in order to put in evidence the presence at least of the first order interactions.
Point 9: At line 261, on the base of the F test result (table 4), the significance level is at 1%, not at 10% as reported by the Authors.
Point 10: In the tables 3 and 4 the titles of the second and third column are inverted.
Response 8 - 10: Two-way ANOVA was conducted to see the interaction effect of the two variables, and the results were added instead of previous ANOVA tables. Also, we checked all title of tables. (line 259 – 265)
Point 11: Finally, it is evident that all the tests were carried out without cover the seeds by means of the hopper 3. However, the presence of the soil over the seeds can modify the result obtained and others operative conditions should be searched. The conclusions must be into account this aspect.
Response 11: Factorial experiments were conducted under the conservative conditions that the seeded pot tray was not covered. Therefore, if there are no seeds to be thrown out in this experiment, there will be no empty cells in pot tray in the real seeding work. This expression was added in Conclusion. (line 305 – 307)
Point 12: Furthermore, the references are limited.
Response 12: The references of the characteristics of pot tray and the specifications of roller-type pot-seeding machine were added. (line 50 and 68)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors to have accepted my suggestions.
I have few other indications.
In my opinion:
the table 2 can be eliminated (you remember to update the number of the following tables);
at lines 129-130 the phrase "The guide supports the brackets" can be eliminated;
at lines 194 and 245 the word "static" should be eliminated; in fact, the contact is due to the motion of the elevator; in consenquence, the caption at line 256 should be revised too.
Author Response
To reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper is improved by your comments.
We modified the paper following your comments, and our responds to the comments are as follows: (all the changes are expressed in red color)
Point 1: The table 2 can be eliminated (you remember to update the number of the following tables)
Response 1: The table 2 was deleted (line 94).
Point 2: At lines 129-130 the phrase "The guide supports the brackets" can be eliminated
Response 2: The phase was deleted (line 128).
Point 3: At lines 194 and 245 the word "static" should be eliminated; in fact, the contact is due to the motion of the elevator; in consenquence, the caption at line 256 should be revised too
Response 3: The word “static” was deleted. (line 193, 244, 255).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
