Design and Research of a Harvesting Actuator for Camellia oleifera Flowers during the Budding Period
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The applied revisions are acceptable and I believe the paper is suitable to publish.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
We are honored to have your approval of our work
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
This manuscript addressed designing a harvesting actuator for picking and collecting Camellia flowers during the budding period and studied the influence of adjusting the motor speed on the harvest time of a single flower and the success rate of harvesting. This study recommended that motor speed of 400r/min recorded the best picking, the highest harvesting rate of 96%, and the less harvesting time of 1.21s.
Some comments to the respected authors:
1. The numbering of the lines did not exist in the manuscript.
2. In the introduction section, please revise the writing style according to the journal style for the authors from 10 to 14.
3. In section 2.1, the vernier caliper and electronic scale’s technical specifications were not mentioned. Please add them.
4. The authors should revise the moment of inertia unit in the sentences after equation 6.
5. In equation 13, please change the resistance moment and torsion moment units.
6. The authors should revise the units throughout the manuscript in terms of superscript and subscript. Please change them.
7. Concerning the collecting system, the authors did not mention any specifications or the volume of the collecting system and the pipe length and diameter that transport the Camellia flowers from the end-effector to the collecting system. Please add it.
8. In figure 16, the authors should change the text’s color inside each figure to clear the text written in each figure.
9. The authors should mention how they can adjust the motor speed from less than 200 to 400 r/min.
10. In the conclusion section, the authors should add their future perspectives to enhance the reliability of the harvesting actuator.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
Sincerely thank you for your suggestion, which we have carefully considered and uploaded a new revised version. We have highlighted all revised paragraphs in blue. The responses have been uploaded as attachments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
REVIEW REPORT:
Journal Name and Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1951349
Title: Design and research a harvesting actuator for Camellia flowers at the budding period
Type of manuscript: Article
Authors: Zechao Wu, Lijun Li *, Qing Zhao, Xin Guo, Jun Li
Submitted to Section: Agricultural Technology
Special Issue: Mechanical Harvesting Technology in Orchards
GENERAL EVALUATION:
The manuscript entitled as “Design and research a harvesting actuator for Camellia flowers at the budding period” deals with the design and testing of a prototype Camellia oleifera flowers harvester. The authors aimed to develop a harvesting system to mechanize the collection of these flowers to obtain pollens to increase the harvesting efficiency as compared to manual harvesting. The system consisted of a friction-roller-based picking unit and a pneumatic conveying system that is wearable on a worker. They evaluated various parameters especially the rotation speed of the friction rollers in the picking system on the time and success rate of the harvester. The subject of the paper is suitable for the journal’s special issue. Even if there has been some research on the harvesting of Camellia oleifera fruits, the studies on the flowers has been very limited. But the study was not designed well and has some very significant shortcomings. I have some concerns related to the experimental design. After major review, I may recommend acceptance of the manuscript for this high impact factor journal.
My main concerns are given below:
1) The system is not fully mechanized. It is carried on back of a worker. Therefore, it has very limited efficiency (in terms of number of harvested flower per hour) as compared to manual harvesting. Furthermore, the authors did not compare the efficiency of the prototype with manual harvesting. This is a very significant weakness.
2) It looks like the harvester needs hand feeding of the flowers towards the picking unit (Figure 16). This is a disadvantage and does not offer an important advantage compared to manual harvesting
3) The damage rate on the collected flowers is vital but the authors did not measure and report the damage rate. This is a very important shortcoming.
4) Information on the importance and usage of Camellia oleifera is missing (should have been included in the Intro section).
5) Information on the production of Camellia oleifera in the world and on the most important countries is not given.
6) Did the authors conduct the experiment with repetitions, if so, how many repetitions? The tests must have been carried out at least with three repetitions and the means and standard deviations must have been included in the Table 3 and 4 with statistical significance test results.
7) The names in Latin must be in Italic format in whole manuscript.
8) Is there a common name for “Camellia oleifera”. If so, it should be provided.
9) Is "budding period" appropriate for this study. The flower looks like opened in Figure 1?
10) In general, the writing style and the use of English language is weak and not satisfactory. There are many shortcomings:
- Lines in the paper were not numbered which makes the review very difficult.
- The paper must be arranged into standard sections: Intro, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusion. The titles “Materials and Methods” and “Results and Discussion” are missing
- Past tense must be used for the methods and results section (how you did, what you found).
- The captions for the tables and figures are too short and not informative.
- Start the all sentences with a capital letter.
11) Manuscript needs major revision in terms of English writing style and grammar. I included some of them in the list given below.
12) All acronyms must have been spelled out the first time they are mentioned in the Abstract and other sections. All of them must be checked in the paper. Acronyms used in tables and figures must be given in the figure itself or in the figure captions and under the tables.
13) I listed some additional corrections, recommendations and questions below for the authors to improve the manuscript.
TITLE
The title should be revised as: Design and research "of" a harvesting actuator for Camellia "oleifera" flowers at the budding period
ABSTRACT
Too many repetitions of the term: "Camellia oleifera flowers" in the Abstract. Please revise.
Line 1: Use "Collection of Camellia oleifera flowers" instead of "Camellia oleifera flowers collection".
Line 1: Use "Camellia oleifera flower pollen" instead of "Camellia pollen"
Line 2: Use "Due to" instead of "For"
Line 3: Use "a harvesting" instead of "an harvesting"
Line 8: Provide the full name for this acronym: “ADAMS”
Line 15: Use "1.2 s" instead of "1.21s"
KEYWORDS
A new keyword should be added: efficiency
INTRODUCTION
Change the title as "Introduction" instead of "introduction".
Page 2 Line 6-9: grammar error, revise the sentence, also use past tense.
Page 2 Line 11: revise the sentence
2. Analysis of inherent characteristics of camellia oleifera flowers
- Too many repetitions of this term: "Camellia oleifera flowers". Please revise.
- Explain why you selected "Sanhua" variety. How many common varieties are there?
2.1. Biological characteristics of Camellia oleifera flowers
1st paragraph, Line 6: This part must be a separate sentence: "single flowering period is about 7d"
2nd paragraph, Line 1: What is "peanut"? How is it related?
2nd paragraph, Line 8: This part must be a separate sentence: "budding period camellia oleifera flowers as shown in Figure 1"
2nd paragraph, Line 5-7: grammar error, revise the sentence
Figure 1: There is only one flower, revise the figure caption: "Camellia oleifera flower at the budding period."
Page 3, 1st paragraph, Line 4: use "size" instead of "diameter", it is not perfectly round
Figure 2b: Use "Mass" instead of "Quality".
Page 3, 2nd paragraph, Line 1: Use "mass" instead of "quality".
Page 3, 2nd paragraph, Line 2: grammar error, revise the sentence
Page 3, 2nd paragraph, Line 2-3: Give the numbers with one decimal.
2.2. Mechanical properties of Camellia oleifera flowers
Page 3, 1st paragraph, Line 2: Delete the comma
Figure 3: Give the numbers with one decimal in this figure.
Figure 4: Show the data in two separate figures as Figure 4a and 4b.
Paragraph after Figure 4: Use past tense, give smaller numbers with two decimals (0.02N.m), and bigger numbers with one decimals (7.9N)
Change the caption of Figure 4 as: "Binding force data of the camellia oleifera flower samples"
Figure 5: Show the data in two separate figures as Figure 5a and 5b.
Change the caption of Figure 5 as: "Tilt angle and friction coefficient data of the camellia oleifera flower samples"
Paragraph after Figure 4: Use past tense, give the smaller numbers with two decimals (0.68).
3. Structural design and operating principle
3.1. Structure composition
Page 5, 1st paragraph, Line 5: Delete the word "collection"
Page 5-6: Combine Figures 6 and 7, give them side by side as Figure 6a and 6b.
Page 6: Provide the "version number, producer name, city, country" for the "Inventor drawing software" and all other software used in the study
3.2. operating principle
Change the title as "Operating principle" instead of "operating principle".
Page 6, last paragraph: Too many repetitions of this term: "Camellia oleifera flowers". Please revise.
4.1.1. Geometric model analysis of camellia oleifera flowers
1st paragraph, Last sentence: Check the grammar, revise the sentence.
Figure 8: Use smaller font size for the labels in the figure.
Change the caption as: "Figure 8. Schematic diagram of the three-dimensional coordinates of camellia oleifera flower"
Page 8, 4th paragraph, first Line: Check the typing of Jx, Jy, Jz
4.1.2. Analysis of the movement of camellia oleifera flowers
2nd paragraph, second sentence: Check the grammar, make a full sentence.
Page 8, Last Line: Check this term: "moment of moment M"
Page 9, 3rd paragraph, first line: Check the grammar, make a full sentence.
Page 9, 3rd paragraph, 7th line: "flowers" instead of "flower s"
4.2. Force analysis of camellia oleifera flower picking
Page 9, last paragraph, Line 2-4: Check the grammar, make a full sentence.
Page 9, last paragraph: Provide the "full name, version number, producer name, city, country" for the "ADAMS" software
Is Figure 9 realistic? Is the surface of picking unit fingers flat or grooved? It looks like they are grooved in Figure 7.
Page 10, 1st paragraph, lines 3-5: Check the grammar, make a full sentence.
Table 1: Change the caption "Model constraints table" as "Model constraints used in the study"
Table 1: Use capital letters for the first letters of the terms.
Table 2: What is "ground"? Do you mean surface?
Page 10, 2nd paragraph, line 4: Use "0.2 N.m" instead of "0.2 N. m"
Page 10, 2nd paragraph: Give the small numbers with two decimals (0.02, 0.68, etc.)
Page 10, 2nd paragraph: Which software did you use for this procedure, mention it.
Figure 10: Use bigger font sizes in numbers on X and Y axis. Change the caption as "Camellia oleifera flower torque variation curve" instead of "camellia oleifera flower torque variation curve"
Figure 11. Change the capition as "Simulated picking process of a Camellia oleifera flower by the picking unit" instead of "Simulated picking process"
Page 11, 1st paragraph: Check the grammar of the last sentence and revise it.
Figure 12 needs clarification in the text.
Figure 12: Change the caption as "Contact surface model of the flower (left) and the friction roller (right)" instead of "Contact surface model"
Page 11, last paragraph: Check the grammar, revise the sentences.
Figure 12 and 13 should be combined as left-right or top-bottom
Figure 13: Use bigger font size for the labels in the figure 13b.
Page 12, Equation 11, 12, 13:
Give the explanation of each term in the order of the formula (FNX, first, FN1 second, etc.)
Use "where:" instead of "Formula:" on page 12-13.
Use "N.m" instead of "N.M"
Page 13: Use "kg.m2" instead of "Kg.m2"
Page 13, Equation 16-17-18: Use bigger font size.
Page 13, Figure 14: Use smaller font size.
5.1. Prototype preparation
Page 14, 1st paragraph: Give the voltage and amper-hour value of the battery.
Figure 15: Change the caption as "Prototype harvesting system for the Camellia oleifera flowers" instead of "Test prototype diagram"
Figure 15: Add and show the "pneumatic transport pipe"
Page 14, Paragraph after Figure 15, first line: Is it the motor to power friction rollers? Please clarify.
Page 12, 2nd paragraph: Use "200-500 rpm" instead of "200r/min-500r/min"
Page 12, 2nd paragraph, line 4: Start the sentence with a capital letter.
Figure 16: The text on the photos are not easily readable, please move them underneath the photos
Figure 16. Change the caption as "Experimental process diagram of the prototype harvesting system for the Camellia oleifera flowers" instead of "Experimental process diagram"
Table 2. Change the caption as "Harvest time and harvest success of the prototype harvesting system for the Camellia oleifera flowers"
Table 2. Delete the first line
Page 16, 1st paragraph: Use "200-500 rpm" instead of "200r/min-500r/min"
CONCLUSIONS
Use past tense when you give information about what you did and what you found.
REFERENCES
- Formats of the references are not standard.
- First letters of the titles of some articles are capital letters: 3,4,5,6,etc.
- First letters of the titles of some articles are small letters: 1,2,10,etc.
- No 9: "ASAE" not "Asae"
- No 12,14,25,36: Check the title for typing errors
(end)
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
Sincerely thank you for your suggestion, which we have carefully considered and uploaded a new revised version. We have highlighted all revised paragraphs in red. The responses have been uploaded as attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors responded to my comments point-by-point, and I am satisfied with their responses.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
We are honored to have your approval of our work
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Review Report (Round 2):
Journal Name and Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1951349
Title: Design and research a harvesting actuator for Camellia flowers at the budding period
Type of manuscript: Article
Authors: Zechao Wu, Lijun Li *, Qing Zhao, Xin Guo, Jun Li
Submitted to Section: Agricultural Technology
Special Issue: Mechanical Harvesting Technology in Orchards
Dear Editors,
I checked the revised manuscript. The authors accomplished most of the suggested changes and additions but there are some more to be revised. Some of the suggested editing were not revised. The manuscript is now relatively but nut fully in a better shape and content. There are still some minor changes and additions I suggest as listed below. I marked some of them on the paper attached. It looks like the Authors do not have enough experience to write a scientific paper. There are still some shortcomings. I recommend the Authors to have the paper read by a native speaker or very experienced person or use an online editing service. I recommend acceptance of the paper after these minor revisions. There is no need for me to check it again.
List of Suggested Minor Revisions:
General comments:
- The names in Latin must be in ITALIC format in whole manuscript. This was not done. The name "Camellia oleifera" must be ITALIC in whole paper including the paper's title.
- The authors added this sentence to the manuscript (Section 5.3); "speed of machine collection of camellia oleifera flowers is 2.3 times of manual collection". A similar sentence should be added to the Conclusion and Abstract section as this is a very important finding.
Abstract:
- Still, too many repetitions of the term: "Camellia oleifera flowers" (11 times) in the Abstract. This was not done. Please revise. You can use "these flowers", for example.
- Include ADAMS in parenthesis after "Automatic Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems".
- In plant names in Latin we use mainly two words. The first letter of the first word must be in "capital letter" the second word must be in all small letters like "Camellia oleifera". This is very basic rule in scientific paper writing. Please revise all of them in the paper.
Introduction:
- First sentence need revision in English grammar.
- Page 2, 1st paragraph. Start the new sentence with a "capital letter".
The title “Materials and Methods” should be placed after the “INTRODUCTION” section.
- Figure 14: Please use smaller font size inside this figure, similar size with the text of the paper.
- The mean and standard deviation must be given in this format (using plus and minus sign):1.62 ± 0.10
(end)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
Sincerely thank you for your suggestion, which we have carefully considered and uploaded a new revised version. We have highlighted all revised paragraphs in green. The responses have been uploaded as attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript designs an end effector that relies on friction to pick camellias. There are many key problems in the process of describing the end effector:
1. The structure of the end effector is designed by the average size of the camellia flower, which is a rigid structure. Therefore, the damage to camellia must be considered, but it is not shown in the text.
2. How to define the success rate of picking?
3. How to define the single picking time? Should it be counted from the moment the operator discovers camellia flowers?
4. The working method of the end effector imitates the twisting method of the human hand, but there is no comparison with manual picking. How to reflect the superiority?
5. The end effector is manually operated and positioned by the human eye. This picking method is essentially different from pure manual picking. The article should reflect the essential difference between this picking method and manual picking.
6. When using the picking end effector, the operator also needs to carry a power supply. What is the battery life of the power supply? How many plants can be picked during the battery life?
7. When picking camellias in a rotating way, why not cut the roots of the stems directly?
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
Sincerely thank you for your suggestion, which we have carefully considered and uploaded a new revised version. We have highlighted all revised paragraphs in blue. The responses have been uploaded as attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Abstract and introduction need to be rewritten.
2. In the introduction, refer to other research about harvesting machines related to this product.
3. How does this device work for harvesting bloomed flowers? Does it only harvest unbloomed flowers?
Do not flower components scatter in the harvesting of bloomed flowers?
4. My proposed title for this research is "Design and research a harvesting actuator for Camellia flowers at the budding period"
5. In the section "4.2. Force analysis of oil tea flower picking"
The phrase "oil tea flower" was not used throughout the text. Camellia flower was used.
6. Definition of the performance (picking) index of harvesting success rate" should be provided.
7. Please, pay attention to the comments on the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
Sincerely thank you for your suggestion, which we have carefully considered and uploaded a new revised version. We have highlighted all revised paragraphs in green. The responses have been uploaded as attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
According to the physical characteristics of Camellia oleifera, the author designed a harvesting device. The overall research is reasonable and rich in content. In the process of reviewing the manuscript, I was very distressed because the line number was missing, and it was difficult for me to comment on a specific position. This manuscript has many problems that need to be modified:
1. The author mentioned in the introduction that the picking efficiency of the machine in reference [9] is low, so has the picking efficiency test been conducted in this study? What is the specific picking efficiency? What are the advantages over conventional harvesting methods?
2. What is stated in reference [14] should be changed to "Ji et al”?
3. “There are so many different types of flowers and different growth states that it is difficult to have a universal harvesting machine.” This sentence is not correct, because the machine you developed can only harvest Camellia oleifera and cannot be used universally. It should be changed to "there are so many types of machines, but they cannot harvest camellia oil effectively".
4. It is unreasonable to plot three curves on one graph in Fig. 2.
5. What instrument did the author use when testing the relevant mechanical properties? How to operate? Please elaborate on the steps.
6. 3.1 for structural components, please elaborate on the overall structural dimension, key component dimension, gear specification and transmission ratio.
7. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 are not significant. I suggest using dynamics software for simulation analysis.
8. In Section 5.1, why does the machine use suction? Because the author did not mention the need for air flow when developing the machine, it was just a simple mechanical equipment. What is the pressure of the air flow? Does it affect the picking process of Camellia oleifera flower? Can the test reflect the performance of mechanical equipment?
9. The author should summarize the relationship between experimental factors and indicators in the experimental results.
10. What is the damage rate of Camellia oleifera flower?
11. The conclusion needs to be elaborated and simplified.
12. Please check the reference format and modify it.
13. The language of the manuscript needs polishing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
Sincerely thank you for your suggestion, which we have carefully considered and uploaded a new revised version. We have highlighted all revised paragraphs in red. The responses have been uploaded as attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
1- The authors made many corrections. However, some things need to be investigated.
2- In section 4.2, There is no force analysis in this section. This section needs to be revised.
3- There are several comments in the attached file. Please, be considered.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
Sincerely thank you for your suggestion, which we have carefully considered and uploaded a new revised version. We have highlighted all revised paragraphs in orange. The responses have been uploaded as attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors answered the questions I mentioned in great detail, but one question was not addressed. The authors added the process of kinetic software simulation analysis, which was only intuitively analyzed and not convincing. Since this section is to analyze the force on the Camellia oleifera, I suggest adding the force curve of the oleifera in the cycle from picking to completion. Also add the boundary conditions set in ADAMS.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers.
Sincerely thank you for your suggestion, which we have carefully considered and uploaded a new revised version. We have highlighted all revised paragraphs in purple. The responses have been uploaded as attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
