Evaluation on the Performance of Airflow Distribution Device of Pneumatic Seeder for Rapeseed through CFD Simulations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written and deals with the real problem in seeding technology. The following changes are recommended to improve the manuscript:
1. As mentioned in 3.1 of the manuscript, the airflow distribution devices were divided into three types. Why does the author choose this three types, what is the basis, and which is currently installed on the equipment? At the same time, Figure 4 is called Model building and meshing. Where is the meshing diagram?
2. Line 173 in the manuscript: The working negative pressure was assumed and the Reynolds number was calculated to select the turbulence model. It is recommended to increase the basis for the assumed working negative pressure.
3.In line 261，there's a problem with the presentation of m，m should be the average mass.
4.In Line 241 in the manuscript: 20,09? Check the full text and correct it.
5. Field test is not convincing. Please add more data or figures to proof the simulation test.
6.The manuscript is lacking in acknowledgments content.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this article, the negative pressure air distribution mechanism is a vital component of the pneumatic metering device equipment. The thesis numerical simulated its internal flow field using CFD simulation. It also explained the motion distribution of the interior flow field of various air distribution mechanisms and optimized the major structural parameters of the air distribution mechanism using the second rotation orthogonal test method, which may inspire future studies. As a whole, the article contains some originality, and the paper is acceptable. However, it nevertheless contains the following issues:
(1) In this article, the author employs FLUENT to simulate the flow field in the an airflow distribution device within the valve mechanism and analyzes the reasons for negative pressure loss. However, it is unclear how the simulation results presented in this research can be demonstrated to be accurate. If the simulation's outcomes diverge greatly from reality, the simulation is not trustworthy. The question of whether experimental and simulation results should be compared.
(2) Is there any justification for setting the maximum surface size to 2mm in section 3.2.1 of this paper's mesh division of the air distribution mechanism? Based on the principle of the finite volume approach, the higher the precision of the solution, the more finely the mesh is split. Should we compare the computational findings under various mesh conditions and evaluate their applicability to the mesh?
(3) In the introduction, the author elaborated on the current study results of others; nonetheless, the analysis was insufficient. To demonstrate the originality of this research, it is vital to undertake an in-depth analysis that is closely related to it.
(4) The formulation had mistakes in its expression. In Formula 3, the terms L1+L2, 1 and 2 should not be italicized. Please verify the format of the entire document.
(5) It should be mentioned that your paper should be carefully edited by expert technical English editors, giving specific attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure, so that readers can comprehend the research's objectives and findings.
Author Response
请看附件
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is of good quality and involves one of the key technologies of seeding. It studies the practical problems existing in pneumatic seeding and is innovative, but the details suggest further improvement:
(1) In Section 3.2.1, it is assumed that the negative pressure is 1000Pa to calculate the Reynolds number and judge the turbulence model, whether the rigor of the paper is violated. It is suggested to add relevant content to back up why negative pressure was chosen.
(2) In the model establishment of manuscript 3.1, there are errors in the representation of Figure 4, such as: the grid division of the valve mechanism is not shown. Please correct it.
(3) Manuscript line 241: 20,09There is a writing error in the data. Please check the full text and correct it.
(4) The English language and style need to be moderately modified.
(5) There are no acknowledgements in the manuscript.
Author Response
请看附件
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1、In the coverletter, the author writes the wrong journal name. Manuscript ID: sensors-1940224 should be Manuscript ID: agriculture-1940224.
2、There are some format problems in References, please make corrections. Such as the references 10、26.
3、In line 423，lack of punctuation.
