Study on Fugitive Dust Control Technologies of Agricultural Harvesting Machinery
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents a study on study on fugitive dust control technologies of agricultural harvesting machinery. Overall, the study is interesting, and the authors have made efforts to present their findings.
However, I believed the manuscript needs to be improved. The reasons for the improvement are as follows:
1. Research gap is unclear, thus, the novelty is also unclear.
2. Objectives of study needs rephrase in order to be easy to understand.
3. Make a section to show the results. The authors did not present the results of the study. I suggest the authors deliver the results in tabular, or use tables to summarize the results. This study about the dust fugitive dust, but no measures results from quantitative data regarding dust fugitive.
4. Conclusion also must be rewritten because the current conclusions seem too long and the content is not that solid to wrap up the findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with the problem of air dust in agriculture: identification, measurement, and removal. Since air dusting is dangerous for human health, especially air dusting with organic particles, the manuscript is valuable. The problem of air dust is not a new topic. A lot of papers have been published in the world on this problem. This manuscript is a review paper of a rather general nature. Quoting less than 100 scientific papers in a comprehensive review article is, in my opinion, too little. The authors have, for example, discussed the composition of dust in too general terms, and the effects of dust components on human health have been described in too general terms.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did extensive efforts in studying fugitive dust control technologies of agricultural harvesting machinery. This paper presents four technologies for reducing particle emissions and five technologies for measuring particles. It then compares and analyses the two sets of technologies in terms of their practicability in the context of controlling dust produced by agricultural harvesting machines.
I have minor suggestions concerning the abstract; introduction and conclusion section. Please make the abstract and conclusion section more concise and mention the limitations of the work. In the introduction section, please include the study problem and objectives for a better understanding of the readers. Lastly, please check the grammatical errors throughout the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The introduction needs to be revised. There are resources that are not provided. For Example; Zhang, P. et al., 2021. Characteristics of Agricultural Dust Emissions from Harvesting Operations: Case Study of a Whole-Feed Peanut Combine. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1068.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have gone through the revised manuscript, and I believed that the authors have addressed the comments accordingly. Hence, I think this manuscript has met this journal standards.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Round 2
Point 1: I have gone through the revised manuscript, and I believed that the authors have addressed the comments accordingly. Hence, I think this manuscript has met this journal standards..
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. We have carefully studied your comments and addressed the comments accordingly.
-------------------------------------------
Round 1
Point 1: Research gap is unclear, thus, the novelty is also unclear.
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. We revised the introduction to explain the gap and novelty of the research, which is briefly summarized as follows. Due to the fact that there are few systematic studies on the fugitive dust of agricultural har-vesting machinery at present, the existing dust control measures are mostly trans-planted directly from other industrial fields, and the matching with agricultural har-vesting machinery and the energy consumption and maintenance issues that farmers are concerned about are rarely considered.They have been greatly restricted in terms of application and promotion. Our research starts with the generation, composition and particle size characteristics of dust, expounds the harm of dust, and analyzes the feasibility of different dust suppression technologies and measurement methods from the perspective of agricultural production, which is more systematic, scientific and practical.
Point 2: Objectives of study needs rephrase in order to be easy to nderstand.
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. We revised the introduction to make the objectives of study easier to understand.
Point 3: Make a section to show the results. The authors did not present the results of the study. I suggest the authors deliver the results in tabular, or use tables to summarize the results.
This study about the dust fugitive dust, but no measures results from quantitative data regarding dust fugitive.
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. We have made a new section “3 Results and Discussion” to present the results of the study in tabular.
We revised the article and presented the quantitative measurement results of fugitive dust from some references. These quantitative measurement results can be found in sections 2.2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.5 and 3.1.
Point 4: Conclusion also must be rewritten because the current conclusions seem too long and the content is not that solid to wrap up the findings.
Response 4: Thanks for your comments. We rewrote the conclusions to make it more concise and substantial.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have applied the points specified by the referees in the previous step. However, there are still a few things that need to be fixed. These are as follows.
1. The caption of Figure 1 be changed to "Sources of atmospheric particulate matter and its effects" or "Atmospheric particulate matter: sources, effects and size classification"
2. In line 80: “ρg” changed to “ρa”.
3. In line 196: “Fugitive” changed to “Fugitive dust”.
4. In line 539: “69.98±31.70 ug/m3” changed to “69.98±31.70 μg/m3”.
5. In line 696: living particles “et al.” changed to “etc”.
6. Please, Again one more time, please check the grammatical errors throughout the paper.
Best regards,
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Round 2
Point 1: The caption of Figure 1 be changed to "Sources of atmospheric particulate matter and its effects" or "Atmospheric particulate matter: sources, effects and size classification".
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. The caption of Figure 1 has been changed to "Atmospheric particulate matter: sources, effects and size classification".
Point 2: In line 80: "ρg" changed to "ρa".
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. We have changed "ρg" to "ρa".
Point 3: In line 196: "Fugitive" changed to " Fugitive dust".
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. We have changed "Fugitive" to " Fugitive dust".
Point 4: In line 539: "69.98±31.70 ug/m3" changed to "69.98±31.70 μg/m3".
Response 4: Thanks for your comments. We have changed "69.98±31.70 ug/m3" to "69.98±31.70 μg/m3".
Point 5: In line 696: living particles “et al.” changed to “etc”.
Response 5: Thanks for your comments. We have changed "et al." to "etc".
Point 6: Please, Again one more time, please check the grammatical errors throughout the paper..
Response 6: Thanks for your comments. We have checked the grammatical errors throughout the paper again.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
