Effect and Mechanism of Micro-Nano Aeration Treatment on a Drip Irrigation Emitter Based on Groundwater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Expertise Report:

Title: Effect and Mechanism of Micro-nano Aeration Treatment on Drip Irrigation Emitters Based on Groundwater

Recommendation: Major Revision

The article addresses the issue of emitter clogging in drip irrigation systems, with a focus on the influence of micro-nano bubbles on the clogging process and formation, aligning well with the journal's requirements. The work is interesting and makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of emitter clogging in drip irrigation. However, there are some practical recommendations that could enhance its value for the agricultural and scientific community. Here are my remarks:

1)      Abstract:

·         The abstract is relatively clear in presenting the research problem and methods used. However, it could be improved by defining certain terms, such as "Dra," "Cu," and "Us," upon their first use, for better reader comprehension.

·         The abstract correctly identifies emitter clogging as a major challenge for drip irrigation technology. Still, it could benefit from a brief explanation of the importance of addressing this issue, especially in terms of irrigation efficiency and water resource preservation.

·         The abstract briefly describes the methodology, including the addition of micro-nano bubbles to groundwater to study their effect on emitter clogging. However, it would be helpful to include some additional details about how this study was conducted, such as sample sizes, aeration conditions, etc.

·         The main results are clearly stated, showing a significant reduction in Dra with aeration, as well as a decrease in Cu and Us. However, providing numerical data to strengthen these conclusions and allow readers to grasp the extent of these changes would be beneficial.

2)      Introduction:

The introduction lays the groundwork for the research fairly clearly by presenting the issue of water scarcity in China and introducing the concept of aerated drip irrigation. It also states the primary objective of the study, which is to explore emitter clogging in this type of irrigation. However, there are some aspects that could be improved to make the introduction more compelling and informative.

·         First, it could benefit from the inclusion of current data or statistics to support the issue of water scarcity in China. This would help demonstrate the urgency and significance of the research topic.

·         Second, the section on previous studies could be expanded to explain in more detail how these studies relate to the current research and contribute to the context. This would show the continuity of research in this field.

·         Third, it would be useful to further explain why this study on emitter clogging in aerated drip irrigation is important. In other words, how can this research have a positive impact on agriculture or the environment, and why should readers care about it?

·         Lastly, the clarity of the article's structure would be improved by providing a brief overview of the upcoming sections of the paper, helping readers understand how the information will be presented.

Overall, the introduction lays the foundation for the research, but by further developing certain points and adding contextual elements, it could be more impactful and informative for readers.

3)      Methodology:

The section is well-structured and clear. Subsections detail each aspect of the methodology, making it easy to understand how the study was conducted. Overall, the "Materials and Methods" section is solid, but some adjustments could make the methodological choices and justifications more explicit for readers:

·         It would be helpful to include a brief justification for the choices, including why these specific emitters were selected and why aeration was chosen as a study variable.

·         Explain why the Dra≤75% threshold was chosen as a clogging criterion and how it applies to the study's objective.

·         Provide more explanation of the importance of uniformity coefficients (Cu and Us) in assessing system performance and how these values are interpreted.

·         Ensure that you explain why these water quality parameters were chosen for the study and how they are relevant to understanding emitter clogging.

·         Briefly explain how the data were analyzed using SPSS, Jade 6, and Solidworks software, and if specific statistical methods were employed.

4)      Results and Discussion:

The article appears to address an important issue related to emitter clogging in a drip irrigation system, focusing on the impact of micro-nano aeration. This is a timely topic as efficient irrigation management is crucial for agriculture. The strengths of the article include clear objectives, a well-described methodology, and the use of empirical data to support conclusions. Including images (SEM) and numerical data (tables, graphs) enhances the study's credibility. However, there are still areas for improvement:

·         The article could benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the significance of the results. Why does aeration accelerate clogging, and what are the implications for farmers and irrigation system design?

·         It would be useful to place this study in the broader context of emitter clogging research. How does this study fit into existing work, and what are its specific contributions?

·         It would be relevant to discuss practical recommendations arising from this research. For example, how can farmers minimize clogging in their irrigation systems?

Overall, this part of the article makes an interesting contribution to understanding emitter clogging in drip irrigation. However, a more in-depth discussion and practical recommendations could strengthen its value for the agricultural and scientific community.

5)      Conclusion:

The conclusions provide an overview of the experimental results, but they could be strengthened by including statistical data, explaining the relationships with previous findings, suggesting future research directions, and using more concise language for better comprehension. Here's what I note:

·         The conclusions are relatively clear and describe the main findings of the experiment. They indicate that micro-nano aeration had an effect on drip irrigation system clogging, exacerbating this phenomenon. However, they do not provide specific details on the magnitude of these effects, which could make the conclusions stronger.

·         The conclusions could be strengthened by including suggestions for future research. For example, what do the results suggest in terms of possible solutions to mitigate the negative effects of micro-nano aeration on irrigation system clogging?

1)      Language:

The language appears to be formal and technical, which is appropriate for a scientific research article. The article uses appropriate technical terminology to describe concepts and research findings, enhancing the study's credibility. Sentences are generally well-structured, facilitating reader comprehension, and follow a typical academic style. The writing is clear and precise, which is essential in a scientific context. Ideas are well-articulated, and there are no major grammar or syntax issues that make reading difficult.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled Effect and Mechanism of Micro-nano Aeration Treatment on 2 Drip Irrigation Emitter Based on Groundwater is well structured, clearly written. There are aonly few specific remarks that should be consider: Please put the reference nomner in bracets just after mentioning the name. Otherwise, short Author' name could confused the reader, for exaple in line 57 was written .....Niu indicated that ....

Line 113-114 In the text was written that E1 and E3 have pressure compensation functions, but in Table 1 is signed that E2 ands E3 have non-pressure compensations. Please adopt.

Line 145 Please start sentence with word Ten instead of 10.

Line 238 Please revise the sentence. It is not clear (to me). Some numbers are missing for comparison.

Lines 292-294 It is repetition of the text written in lines 173-176. Please erase.

Lines 346 Plase explain the meening of the EDS abbreviations when mentioned first time in section 2.6, after SEM.

Line 358 Please also explain XRD analysis in section 2.6

Researcher who is expert in spectroscopy or chemist should also review the paper, to review SEM, EDS, XRD analysis and results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present the results of an experiment executed at laboratory conditions on the use of nano-aeration systems and its influence on clogging of four drip emitters. The authors also present a thorough analysis of the composition of the clogging material.

I recommend this article to go under major revision, as there is no mention to two scientific papers already published on the same subject:

1) Li, P., Li, H., Li, J., Huang, X., Liu, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2022). Effect of Aeration on Blockage Regularity and Microbial Diversity of Blockage Substance in Drip Irrigation Emitter. Agriculture, 12(11), 1941.;

2) Li, H., Li, H., Han, Q., Huang, X., Jiang, Y., Sun, H., & Li, H. (2020). Influence of micro/nanobubbles on clogging in drip irrigation systems. RSC advances, 10(64), 38912-38922.

There are also further aspects to be considered as listed bellow:

Line 182 - was replaced every

Line 183 - was tested regularly

Line 184 - were determined

Line 206 - only E1 had clogged emitters? If yes, it is a result and it should not be mentioned in the Materials and Methods section. Instead, authors should mentioned that "all treatments that presented clogged emitters were tested..."

Lines 222-223 - Not all aeration treatments presented Dra equal to 0 after 1000 hours (Figure 2). I recommend the authors to review the plots or the text. Maybe the authors should have said: "Since the flow rate of the emitters in each emitter treatment quickly decreased to 0 after 1000 h..."

Lines 328-329 - This phrase should be in the Materials and Methods section.

Lines 345-346 - This phrase should not be in the Results section.

Bellow there are some aspects regarding Quality of English:

Line 182 - was replaced every

Line 183 - was tested regularly

Line 184 - were determined

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form