Development and Experiment of an Online Measuring System for Spray Deposition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript discusses evaluation of spray quality in terms of coverage and deposition quality using online measuring and evaluation system. The research results shows that the outdoor test results showed that the correlation between the sensor voltage increment of the 369 measuring system and the coverage rate of the water sensitive paper is good. The study was well carried out with background information, review of literatures in area of spray deposition and coverage quality application. The discussions shows clearly the contribution of the study. However, here are my few comments and suggestions towards improving the content of the manuscript

Line 113: The word “Figure 1” should be “Figure 3”

Line129: is good to specify the formula by the equation number

Adjust the labelling of Figure 11 close to the figure (a) and (b)

More relevant papers should be cited to improve the literature supporting the manuscript.

I suggest that you improve on the quality of all your figures. Make it clearer

The tables and the data in them should be checked as well

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Please indicate the type of sensors used. It is also desirable to provide a more detailed diagram of the measurement and monitoring system.

2) Fig. 2 - user interface - it is desirable to show later in the work, with numbers and graphs

3) It is necessary to correct the numbering of the figures - fig. 6

4) It is necessary to correct the numbering of the formulas - the formula (14) is indicated twice

5) After the literature review in section 1, it is necessary to clearly write the purpose of the research

6) Formulas given in section 2 - where are they used? It is not clear from the article. It is necessary to describe and give the numerical result of the calculation.

7) In the literature review, it is necessary to write what problems are not solved in existing studies, what are the shortcomings of these methods.

8) Also, in the conclusions, it is necessary to clearly describe how your research and methods are better than those currently existing, what is the novelty of your research.

9) Some drawings need to be improved in quality - they contain small print that is not readable (Fig. 1,3,5)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.) The article should provide a more detailed overview and analysis of existing services for online quality assessment of spraying, for example, generally accepted, such as: Spray App: a shiny for water-sensitive paper analysis or ImageJ. Describe their main advantages and disadvantages in tabular form.

2.) More useful conclusions should be drawn. Perhaps the authors should rewrite the conclusions more analytically.

3.) To improve the quality of work, you should also add the section Prospects for Further Research.

4.) It would be useful to provide economic data of the proposed system and compare it with some similar systems to improve the quality of work.

5.) The steps presented in section 2.3.2 should be presented more clearly in the form of an algorithm.

6.) How does the developed system account for distortions arising from droplet evaporation, gravitational separation of droplets by size (deposition rate), inertia of spray mechanisms, method and exposure time?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am generally satisfied with the corrected remarks