On-Line Detection Method and Device for Moisture Content Measurement of Bales in a Square Baler
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your interesting paper. This is an up-to-date article that deals with interesting issues related to the technique of baling agricultural materials. However, I have a few questions and I would recommend some changes in the manuscript.
1. The paper presents the results of extensive and multi-stage research. Some steps are described in detail, others briefly. This raises questions. I formulate only some of them below. Is it not worth considering supplementing the manuscript with a subsection, which would be a guide through the next research stages and show the relationship between them?
2. No reference to other articles concerning the modelling of the influence of the edge effect on the capacitances of plate capacitors. Are there no such papers? I guess they are.
3. A few models, from linear to cubic, of the ratio C/C' are discussed in Section 2.2.3, where quadratic model is indicated as the best, but this model was not given. It would be advisable, especially since this model is used for optimization.
4. Standard response surface optimization technique combined with Box–Behnken experiment (simulated here?) design is used to choose the best size of the capacitor plate (lines 136, 137 and next 157, 158). Design-Expert tools were applied (line 157). The results concerning dependence of the ratio C/C' on dimensions of the plates, which were determined by the authors, are discussed in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 and illustrated in Figure 3. But the optimization problem solved using Design-Expert tools is not formulated in the paper. What were the goal function and constraints? However in lines 102-103 the reader will find a regarding clue: “Therefore, reasonable optimization of the capacitor plate’s structure will eliminate the influence of the edge effect on the detection sensitivity”. I believe that a precise formulation of the task solved with the Design-Expert tools is advisable and will improve the readability of the work.
5. Line 58 – “the detection model must be compensated” - Unclear. What does model compensation means?
6. Please consider, whether it is not advisable to give an appropriate literature reference for Equation (1). It does not have to be obvious to the reader of Agriculture.
7. Line 115 - "measured" or computed? Not clear.
8. Figure 1 - Is this figure necessary? It is not readable, what does it actually illustrate?
9. Caption of Figure 2 - Edge effect is a phenomenon; here the ratio C/C' is depicted. The same concerns the remarks from lines 131-133.
10. Header of Table 2 - Multiple models ? Rather a few. Maybe "considered"?
11. Table 2 – the value of P is not given for cubic model – why?
12. Some symbols are not precisely defined; although, based on the text, you can guess what quantities they describe. While the coefficient of determination R2 and the calculated probability P are commonly used, the notation should be commented on when first used – lines 142-144 and Table 2, the more so that P is used also for the pressure in Equation between lines 276-277. Maybe, a lowercase p for one of these quantities?
13. Line 143 – the value of P (0.1801) should be corrected.
14. Similarly, it is good to explain acronyms describing calculation methods and tools when first used in the text, even if they are quite commonly used. For example, line 274 – SPSS 26, line 294 – BPNN.
15. Symbol notations are used inconsistently. For example: width of the plane b in line 83, while in line 158 the notation B is used. Similar remark concern capacitances. In Eq. (1), when the edge effect is omitted, capacitance is denoted by C. Next, after introducing the ratio C/C', the same capacitance is denoted by C’; now C is simulated capacitance with edge effect. Consistency in the notations would be advisable, the more so that there are not many of them at the manuscript.
16. Figure 3 - Each of the sub-figures shows the dependence of the ratio C/C' on two independent variables, the value of the third, for which the graph was prepared, should be given in the caption.
17. Negative errors in the abstract, Table 8, Figure 9, and other places. It is commonly assumed that the absolute error is the absolute value of the difference between the exact value and its approximation. The relative error is the absolute error divided by the exact value, provided this value is positive, or divided by the absolute value of the exact value. This means that both types of errors are non-negative. Of course, other error measures can be defined, then they will be negative. But, in my opinion, it requires the introduction of such a definition in the manuscript, so as not to condemn the reader to guesswork.
18. In the manuscript there are only three equations, but equation (3) is quoted as Eq. (6) - line 274.
19. Are the patents [5-7] and [7] in References are correctly labelled? It is not obvious that these are patents.
With best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer # 1,
Based on the constructive comments, edits and suggestions provided by you, we have conducted a thorough revision of the manuscript. We have responded to all edits, comments and suggestions as discussed in the following pages in this document. Corresponding line numbers have been provided where the manuscript has been changed to accommodate the edits, comments and suggestions. Please notice that the line numbers associated with the you comments are from the original manuscript and those associated with our responses are from the revised manuscript.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification.
Thank you very much for your time reviewing the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Zhang Anqi,
Senior Engineer, Ph.D.
Intelligent Equipment Research Center, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences
No. 11 Shuguang Huayuan Road, Haidian District,
Beijing, 100097, China
E-mail: [email protected]
Detailed Responses to Review Comments
Reviewer # 1:
Comments for the Author
Thank you for the opportunity to review your interesting paper. This is an up-to-date article that deals with interesting issues related to the technique of baling agricultural materials. However, I have a few questions and I would recommend some changes in the manuscript.
Authors: Thank you for your affirmation and many valuable comments. I have carefully revised them in accordance with your recommendations. The specific modifications are as follows:
Q1. The paper presents the results of extensive and multi-stage research. Some steps are described in detail, others briefly. This raises questions. I formulate only some of them below. Is it not worth considering supplementing the manuscript with a subsection, which would be a guide through the next research stages and show the relationship between them?
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. I have added subsections at the end of Sections II, III and IV of the article to summarize the research in the current part and guide the research in the next part. (line 221 – 227, line 333 – 343, line 407 – 413)
Q2. No reference to other articles concerning the modelling of the influence of the edge effect on the capacitances of plate capacitors. Are there no such papers? I guess they are.
Authors: Other articles concerning the modelling of the influence of the edge effect on the capacitances of plate capacitors have been referenced in section 2.2 of this article. (line 126)
Q3. A few models, from linear to cubic, of the ratio C/C' are discussed in Section 2.2.3, where quadratic model is indicated as the best, but this model was not given. It would be advisable, especially since this model is used for optimization.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. I have given the quadratic model and ANOVA results in section 2.2.3. (line 185 - 197)
Q4. Standard response surface optimization technique combined with Box–Behnken experiment (simulated here?) design is used to choose the best size of the capacitor plate (lines 136, 137 and next 157, 158). Design-Expert tools were applied (line 157). The results concerning dependence of the ratio C/C' on dimensions of the plates, which were determined by the authors, are discussed in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 and illustrated in Figure 3. But the optimization problem solved using Design-Expert tools is not formulated in the paper. What were the goal function and constraints? However in lines 102-103 the reader will find a regarding clue: “Therefore, reasonable optimization of the capacitor plate’s structure will eliminate the influence of the edge effect on the detection sensitivity”. I believe that a precise formulation of the task solved with the Design-Expert tools is advisable and will improve the readability of the work.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. Because the change of the ratio of the simulated capacitance value to the theoretical capacitance value will affect the edge effect of the capacitor plate, when the ratio is equal to 1, it indicates that the edge effect has a minor influence on the detection sensitivity of the capacitor plate. Therefore, the goal of C/C' is set as 1 in the Design-Expert criteria. According to the actual structure size of the pressing baling room of the square baler, the plate length L is set within the range of 50-150mm, the plate width B is set within the range of 40-100, and the plate spacing A is set within the range of 5-15mm. Finally, the optimal size of capacitor plate structure in this size range is calculated by the solver. I have added the details in Section 2.2.3. (line206 - 220).
Q5. Line 58 – “the detection model must be compensated” - Unclear. What does model compensation means?
Authors: The construction of the moisture content detection model is based on the corresponding relationship between the moisture content of the straw and the capacitance value. At the same time, the volume density and temperature of the material will also affect the capacitance value. Therefore, considering the actual detection accuracy and simplicity of the moisture content detection model, the volume density and temperature of the material are also introduced into the detection model. This is my understanding of " the detection model must be compensated ". In the latest edition of the article, the introduction has been revised overall, and the expression "The Detection model must be Compensated" has been removed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Q6. Please consider, whether it is not advisable to give an appropriate literature reference for Equation (1). It does not have to be obvious to the reader of Agriculture.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. I have cited relevant references in the paragraphs below Equation (1). (line 112)
Q7. Line 115 - "measured" or computed? Not clear.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. Here I have changed "measured" to "computed" (line 140)
Q8. Figure 1 - Is this figure necessary? It is not readable, what does it actually illustrate?
Authors: Figure 1 is necessary because it shows the structure and layout of capacitor plates in space. (line 142)
Q9. Caption of Figure 2 - Edge effect is a phenomenon; here the ratio C/C' is depicted. The same concerns the remarks from lines 131-133.
Authors: This section is used to explain the phenomenon in the picture. (line 161 - 164)
Q10. Header of Table 2 - Multiple models ? Rather a few. Maybe "considered"?
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. Here I have changed "multiple" to "considered". (line 180)
Q11. Table 2 – the value of P is not given for cubic model – why?
Authors: The p value of the cubic equation is not obtained in the calculation results. (line 180)
Q12. Some symbols are not precisely defined; although, based on the text, you can guess what quantities they describe. While the coefficient of determination R2 and the calculated probability P are commonly used, the notation should be commented on when first used – lines 142-144 and Table 2, the more so that P is used also for the pressure in Equation between lines 276-277. Maybe, a lowercase p for one of these quantities?
Authors: Thank you for your hard work and valuable questions. I need to apologize for my mistake. I have changed the symbol of the variable in the article according to your question. The meaning of the p value and R2 is given at the end of Table 2, and I have changed the uppercase "P" to lowercase "p" here. Finally, I determined that the capital "P" is used as a symbol of stress (line 181 - 184, line 354)
Q13. Line 143 – the value of P (0.1801) should be corrected.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. Due to my negligence, the data error was caused, and I have corrected the wrong data. (line 174)
Q14. Similarly, it is good to explain acronyms describing calculation methods and tools when first used in the text, even if they are quite commonly used. For example, line 274 – SPSS 26, line 294 – BPNN.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion, I have given you a brief description of the first calculations and abbreviations used at your suggestion. (line 88, line 348, line 351)
Q15. Symbol notations are used inconsistently. For example: width of the plane b in line 83, while in line 158 the notation B is used. Similar remark concern capacitances. In Eq. (1), when the edge effect is omitted, capacitance is denoted by C. Next, after introducing the ratio C/C', the same capacitance is denoted by C’; now C is simulated capacitance with edge effect. Consistency in the notations would be advisable, the more so that there are not many of them at the manuscript.
Authors: Thank you for your hard work and valuable questions. I need to apologize for my mistake. I am sure that the symbol of the width of all capacitor plates is changed to lowercase "p," the symbol of theoretical capacitance value is "C'". and the symbol of simulation capacitance value is "C". I have corrected these errors in the article. (line 110, line 147, line 215)
Q16. Figure 3 - Each of the sub-figures shows the dependence of the ratio C/C' on two independent variables, the value of the third, for which the graph was prepared, should be given in the caption.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion, I have added the value of the third independent variable for each picture in the title of Figure 3. (line 202 - 204)
Q17. Negative errors in the abstract, Table 8, Figure 9, and other places. It is commonly assumed that the absolute error is the absolute value of the difference between the exact value and its approximation. The relative error is the absolute error divided by the exact value, provided this value is positive, or divided by the absolute value of the exact value. This means that both types of errors are non-negative. Of course, other error measures can be defined, then they will be negative. But, in my opinion, it requires the introduction of such a definition in the manuscript, so as not to condemn the reader to guesswork.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. The introduction of negative error is to better show the relationship between predicted value and actual value of moisture content and the distribution of sample error. I have defined negative error in Section 5.3 (line 458 - 461)
Q18. In the manuscript there are only three equations, but equation (3) is quoted as Eq. (6) - line 274.
Authors: Thank you for your hard work and valuable questions. I need to apologize for my mistake. I have corrected "Equation 6" to "Equation 4". (line 352)
Q19. Are the patents [5-7] and [7] in References are correctly labelled? It is not obvious that these are patents.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. In the process of citing the references, I followed the regulations of the Agriculture journal. I modified the format of the references through EndNotes software, but I do not know why the patent number did not appear in the literature. Now I have corrected this error in the list of references. (line 524 - 529)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is excellent
I recommend to make some changes as I explain in the pdf.
Changes are structural by moving complete sections so that the material and methods includes sensor and software construction
The results begin in section 4.
There are some minimum changes in grammar
and some references that require maybe the internet page to find them.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer # 2,
Based on the constructive comments, edits and suggestions provided by you, we have conducted a thorough revision of the manuscript. We have responded to all edits, comments and suggestions as discussed in the following pages in this document. Corresponding line numbers have been provided where the manuscript has been changed to accommodate the edits, comments and suggestions. Please notice that the line numbers associated with the you comments are from the original manuscript and those associated with our responses are from the revised manuscript.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification.
Thank you very much for your time reviewing the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Zhang Anqi,
Senior Engineer, Ph.D.
Intelligent Equipment Research Center, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences
No. 11 Shuguang Huayuan Road, Haidian District,
Beijing, 100097, China
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer # 2:
Comments for the Author
Peer review of the article:
On-line Detection Method and Device for Moisture Content Measurement of Bales in a Square Baler. The article is excellent. I should consider the following points:
Authors: Thank you for your approval of this article. I have carefully revised the article according to your questions and suggestions. The specific modifications are as follows:
Q1. Structural changes
The material and method section named 3.1 (line 204) should be moved to section 3 and to line 161.
The section will include the construction of the sensor
Hardware Design of Moisture-content detection Device (previous section 2.3 and now 3.1.
Software Design of Moisture-content detection Device (previous section 2.4 now section 3.2.
Testing materials will be section 3.3 in line 205. Test equipment will be section 3.3.1 line 211.
Experimental setup will be section 3.4 in line 238.
I recommend to put the section of results and discussion as section 4 which is in line 266.
Establishment of the Multiple Linear Regression Model will be section 4.1. (line 273)
Establishment of the BP Neural Network Model in section 3.2.2. should be section 4.2.
Model Performance Verification and Comparative Analysis (line 312) should change from section 3.3 to 4.3.
Performance Test of Straw Bale Moisture Content On-line Detecting Device should be changes to section 5.
Authors: Thank you for your valuable comments on the structural adjustment of the paper. We have adjusted the structure of the paper as a whole according to your comments after careful consideration.
Figures and tables
Q2. In Figure 1 it is not clear which is the distance between plates, the length and width. Is the block representing the bale? Could you add in the figure the variables that you write in the article for clarity.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. The two metal plates in FIG. 1 are capacitor plates, and the squares around the two metal plates are the constructed electrostatic field environment. The relative dielectric constant in the electrostatic field is set to simulate straw bales. In addition, I have added the length, width, and spacing of the capacitor plates in Figure 1 for clarity. (line 142)
Figure 1. Simulation of capacitor plates in an electrostatic field.
Q3. In section 2.2 to do the simulation and obtain the theoretical capacitance which was the value used for the dielectric constant.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. The simulation experiment results for capacitor plates of different sizes are given in Table 1. (line 158)
Q4. References
References 5-8 are difficult to find as written
Hamilton, K. J. Baler with NIR sensor in plunger face. 2020.
Kraus, T. J. Baler with dry matter content detection system. 2019.
Pemrick, P. Device and method for measuring hay bale moisture. 2002.
Falbo, J. System and method for determining moisture content in a bale of
hay. 2011.
Authors: Thanks for your suggestion. In the process of citing the references, I followed the regulations of the Agriculture journal. I modified the format of the references through EndNotes software, but I do not know why the patent number did not appear in the literature. Now I have corrected this error in the list of references. (line 524 - 529)
English changes
Q5. The 2 sentences in line 37 should be together.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. I have combined the two sentences into one sentence. (line 43 - 45)
Q6. Change for instead of on in line 48.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. The "on" in the original manuscript is in the second paragraph of the introduction, but I have rewritten paragraphs 2-4. And I have revised other similar mistakes in the article according to your suggestions. (line 55 - 97)
Q7. Abovementioned in line 70 lacks a space.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. I need to apologize for my mistake. I have corrected this type of error throughout the article.
Q8. In line 347 only write (4) monitoring software instead of (4) moisture content monitoring software of upper computer; In the following line change (5) to moisture content device.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. I have modified these two phrases according to your suggestion. (line 428 - 429)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript “On-line Detection Method and Device for Moisture Content Measurement of Bales in a Square Baler” presents important scientific information, although several studies have already been published in this line. In general, the manuscript is very well laid out and written.
There are some questions and recommendations to the authors:
- Innovation needs to be better characterized in the introduction. Clearly show the differences and contributions that this study has in relation to other published studies.
- Why did the authors choose to monitor the moisture content and not the temperature and relative humidity in the porosity of the material to calculate the equilibrium moisture content of the product (EMC)? Thus, they could predict what could occur from variation with the moisture content of the product! Justify the advantages of experimental choices.
- What was the product (vegetable) tested? Are there differences if applied to bales with different plant products? Justify.
- Represent graphically and in more detail (design) the monitoring system.
- The results were not very little discussed with other published studies. A more in-depth discussion of the results is expected, with comparisons, showing the advantages of the technology developed.
- Further exploration of the results obtained with results of the tested plant product is expected. Much emphasis was given to the built system and little emphasis to its application.
- Explain what happens with variations in water content in the product and how the monitoring system can collaborate to solve this problem.
- The conclusions need to be punctual, answering the objectives of the study based on the results obtained. As it stands, it's more like an extension of results writing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer # 3,
Based on the constructive comments, edits and suggestions provided by you, we have conducted a thorough revision of the manuscript. We have responded to all edits, comments and suggestions as discussed in the following pages in this document. Corresponding line numbers have been provided where the manuscript has been changed to accommodate the edits, comments and suggestions. Please notice that the line numbers associated with the you comments are from the original manuscript and those associated with our responses are from the revised manuscript.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification.
Thank you very much for your time reviewing the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Zhang Anqi,
Senior Engineer, Ph.D.
Intelligent Equipment Research Center, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences
No. 11 Shuguang Huayuan Road, Haidian District,
Beijing, 100097, China
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer # 3:
The manuscript “On-line Detection Method and Device for Moisture Content Measurement of Bales in a Square Baler” presents important scientific information, although several studies have already been published in this line. In general, the manuscript is very well laid out and written.
There are some questions and recommendations to the authors:
Authors: Thank you for your approval of this article. I have carefully revised the article according to your questions and suggestions. The specific modifications are as follows:
Q1. Innovation needs to be better characterized in the introduction. Clearly show the differences and contributions that this study has in relation to other published studies.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. In this study, aiming at the problems of low detection accuracy and poor stability due to the weak anti-interference ability of the bridge circuit and operational amplifier circuit, and the influence of the capacitance by the bulk density and temperature of the straw bale, an on-line detection device for the moisture content of straw bales in a square baler is developed based on the capacitance method. Firstly, the structure of the capacitor plate was optimized by ANSYS Maxwell software and Box–Behnken design based on response surface optimization to improve the sensitivity of the detection device. Secondly, the multi-sensor data fusion technology is used in the study to measure the straw's capacitance, pressure, and temperature data in real-time and calculate the moisture content synchronously, which can effectively overcome the influence of external factors on the detection accuracy. Thirdly, by comparing the modelling results based on the MLR algorithm and BPNN algorithm, the best moisture content detection model is determined. Finally, the square baler test bench was built to verify the device's performance. The verification results show that the detection accuracy and stability of the device are significantly improved compared with the existing online detection device for moisture content of the baler. (line 83 - 97)
Q2. Why did the authors choose to monitor the moisture content and not the temperature and relative humidity in the porosity of the material to calculate the equilibrium moisture content of the product (EMC)? Thus, they could predict what could occur from variation with the moisture content of the product! Justify the advantages of experimental choices.
Authors: In this paper, based on consulting many related documents, we learned that the capacitance method is based on the mathematical relationship between the capacitance of the capacitive sensor and the moisture content to realize the indirect measurement of the moisture content of the material. The principle is that the material's moisture has two forms free water and bound water. At room temperature, the relative permittivity of water is 80, the relative permittivity of dry straw is 2-5, and the relative permittivity of water is much larger than that of dry straw. When the water content of the straw is low, the interior of the straw is mainly bound water, the respiration intensity of the cells is weak, the activity of ion movement in the cells is low, and the effect of water on the relative permittivity is small; when the water content increases When it is high, the content of free water increases, and gradually expands to the outside to form a multilayer molecular film, the dipole moment becomes more extensive, and the respiration of cells is strengthened. At this time, the relative permittivity of straw increases significantly. Since the relative permittivity of straw can directly reflect the capacitance of the capacitor, the moisture content of straw can be indirectly measured by measuring the capacitance value.
Q3. What was the product (vegetable) tested? Are there differences if applied to bales with different plant products? Justify.
Authors: The object of this paper is straw, which the provincial innovation fund has funded, so a series of studies have been carried out. It should be noted that straw is a crucial biomass resource in agricultural production and has excellent utilization value. When straw is harvested by a baler, monitoring its moisture content plays a positive role in improving the comprehensive utilization level of straw and promoting the sustainable development of agriculture. As you suggested, the internal mechanisms of different plants must be different, but relevant research has not been carried out on other plants so far. We will consider studying the internal mechanism of other plants in the future and realize accurate detection of their moisture content.
Q4. Represent graphically and in more detail (design) the monitoring system.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. I have shown the moisture content monitoring system in more detail in Fig.5 (line 234)
Q5. The results were not very little discussed with other published studies. A more in-depth discussion of the results is expected, with comparisons, showing the advantages of the technology developed.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. In this study, reviewing a large number of the literature shows that there are many problems in other related studies, such as the inaccurate and unstable detection results of moisture content detection devices due to the poor anti-interference ability of detection circuits and the failure to consider other external factors. In this article, firstly, the structure of the capacitor plate is optimized to improve the sensitivity of the detection of the capacitor plate. Secondly, the influence of external factors on detection accuracy was eliminated by multi-sensor data fusion technology to the maximum extent. Finally, BP neural network algorithm was used to build the detection model for moisture content by comparing the prediction performance of different models. Compared with other on-line detection devices for the moisture content of straw bales, this device has a noticeable improvement in simplicity of installation, accuracy, and stability of detection results. I have made substantial revisions to the conclusions of this article and have thoroughly compared and discussed the conclusions of this study with those of other published studies. (line 469 - 497)
Q6. Further exploration of the results obtained with results of the tested plant product is expected. Much emphasis was given to the built system and little emphasis to its application.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. Funded by the Science and Technology Innovation Project, this paper conducted a series of studies on the related content of straw moisture content mentioned in the project, obtained the moisture content detection device, and built a test bench to verify its effect. As you said before, the internal mechanisms of different plants must be different, but relevant research has not been carried out on other plants. If supported by projects in the future, we will further study the internal mechanism of other plants and realize accurate detection of their water content.
Q7. Explain what happens with variations in water content in the product and how the monitoring system can collaborate to solve this problem.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. When the moisture content of materials changes, their relative dielectric constant will also change. Because the relative dielectric constant of materials can directly reflect the capacitance of capacitors, the moisture content of materials can be indirectly measured by measuring the capacitance value. In this research, according to the measurement principle of moisture content of materials based on the capacitance method, the relationship model between capacitance and moisture content is established. When the capacitance changes due to the change in moisture content of materials, the developed device will measure the moisture content of materials in real-time. In this study, the content about the detection principle of straw moisture content has been added in Section 2.1. (line 100 - 107)
Q8. The conclusions need to be punctual, answering the objectives of the study based on the results obtained. As it stands, it's more like an extension of results writing.
Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. I have rewritten the article's conclusion, answered the research's goal according to the research results, and compared it with the results of the current related research. (line 474 - 502)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
