Influence of Spray Control Parameters on the Performance of an Air-Blast Sprayer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents the influences of the control parameters such as blower speed, spray angle and spray distance for spraying performance. This study is interesting for agriculture. The material is enough for this paper.
I still have the following comments for the authors:
Comment 1
There should be a photo of the TR80 atomizer placed in the article.
Comment 2
A diagram of the entire test stand should be included in the article in order to better understand the tests carried out.
Comment 3
Figure 1 should be of better quality.
Comment 4
Incorrect marking of the drawing number in line 111. The text says 'Figure 6' and it should read 'Figure 4'.
Comment 5
Wrong value for spray angle on line 113. It is '60' degrees and should be '45'.
Comment 6
In figures 2-7 on the vertical axis the author shows 'Collection volume(mL)', the wrong unit. The unit was shown as 'mL' and it should be 'ml'.
Comment 7
The value of 1.762m appeared in the application (3). In the article, this value did not appear and it is not clear how it was determined.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the research is interesting, but some improvements must be made, as follows:
The introduction is well structured in my opinion, but several bibliographic sources must be included, both in the introduction and in the discussion part, 22 bibliographic sources are too few for a scientific article, I recommend at least 50-60 sources considering that the theme approached is quite researched.
Material and method. In this chapter, some clarifications must be made, first of all, a correct description of the solution collection equipment was made, but Sprayer the most important equipment in this research was described too succinctly.
In my opinion, it is important to attach a photo of the equipment during the tests performed, and possibly mark on the photo even approximately the angles of the nozzles, to give us as good an idea as possible of how it was experimentally performed.
It is also very important to know what the Sprayer looks like, Tower or classic, there are differences between the positioning of the nozzles and the way of directing the air current, for this reason I recommend pictures and a more detailed description of the equipment.
In the material and method, I did not find the liquid pump described, the flow rate, working pressure, etc. are not specified. only the type of nozzles used are mentioned and it is not enough.
Similarly, in the case of the fan, only the dimensions and the maximum speed (rotations) are shown, it would have been very important to show the speed of the air current and the total volume of handled air, more important than the rotations.
It should be mentioned if both parts of the machine have been tested because it is possible that there are small differences between the left and right sides of the fan.
In the material and method must describe what 2000 r/min, 2400 r/min, 2800 r/min means from the air current perspective (air current speed, total air volume, etc.)
It must be explained what the angle of the nozzle represents (I educed that 0° would be horizontal parallel to the ground and 90° would it be vertical, in this case W=85° is close to vertical? )
The software used to interpret the obtained results and the method according to which their analysis was performed are not specified.
To the results and discussions
In figures 2,3 at the height of 3025 mm or collected more than 50 ml and in figures 5,6 the collected volume recorded a very large decrease, the recorded values ​​being approximately 5 ml. How to explain these big differences? In figure 3 at height 3025 we have N=2400r/min L=1.5m and W=60° we have approximately 55 mL and figure 5a N=2400, L=1 m, W=60° the collected volume is approx. 5 mL? How is this explained?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Hello!
I read the new version of your article, I think things are clearer, I'm glad to see that the article looks better. The effort made and the improvements made are clearly visible.
The number of cited articles has been improved, the comments regarding the description of the equipment including the addition of data in the form of a table (table 2) have clarified things a lot, including the picture of the equipment used fits very well.
