Modelling Vineyard Spraying by Precisely Assessing the Duty Cycles of a Blast Sprayer Controlled by Pulse-Width-Modulated Nozzles
, Coral Ortiz *, Antonio Torregrosa, Enrique Ortí, Montano Pérez, Andrés Cuenca and Francisco Rovira-MásRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper submitted deals with an interesting topic (PWM) and, the activities carried out add important results. Despite the importance of the topic I have to underline that many typos are present in the document (I list some examples):
- "pre-set" and "preset"
- "flow rate" and "flowrate"
- superscripts becoming subscripts and vice versa (e.g. the Pl at LINE 148 Vs LINE166 and the legend in Figure 4; the legend of figure 4; DCq at LINE 210 and 211 Vs code used in Equation 3)
- in many Figures (5, 6, 10, 11, 12) the numbers in axes have to be written with the dot and not the comma (e.g use 0.24 and not 0,24)
- LINE 242 - "(R2 = 91.3 %)". Does 2 have to be superscript?
Please review all the measures units: please use SI only (e.g. not L/min but use L min-1 [-1 as superscript]...)
Other issues are listed here:
- Introduction section has to be reduced. Despite being a well-written and complete section, in my opinion, the authors went too deep in describing the PWM experimental activities published in previous papers. I suggest reporting their results and not describing all the previous experimental activities carried out.
- LINE 117 - "The system pressure (Psys, bar) as..." not sure what "bar" means, is that the pressure measurement unit? if yes pay attention to using bar or Pa and/or kPa.
- LINE 124 - "The flow rate of each nozzle.." please indicate the model and producer of the balance used to weigh liquid.
- In general, Figures are quite small. please enlarge them and the text included in the figures.
- LINE 152 - "circuit was not significant,...". Did you conduct tests through statistical software? Please provide values and/or a table with statistical results.
- LINES 159-160: "The measured flow rate was estimated for individual nozzles by weighting the water collected during a fixed time." this should be deleted because it belongs to the material and methods section
- Please review all equations. avoid using text in equations (e.g. equations 4 and 5) and pay attention to using "x" also as incognita and NOT as a multiplication symbol (it exist a specific symbol for that)
- In general Result section is too long. I suggest going directly to the point, first, by explaining the main findings, and second by reporting results, values, and statistical data.
- LINE 179 - "(p value = 0.000)..." I wondering if the p-value is perfectly 0 or maybe it could be written as X E-10 or as it should be.
- Table 1 - Same as LINE 179
- Figure 10 - I suggest adding in Y axis the title "Preset DC cycles"
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. We have revised this manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestions. We address comments specific to each reviewer below and we attach a pdf with the changes highlighted in yellow.
REVIEWER 1
The paper submitted deals with an interesting topic (PWM) and, the activities carried out add important results. Despite the importance of the topic I have to underline that many typos are present in the document (I list some examples):
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. We have revised this manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestions. We address comments specific to each reviewer and we attach a pdf version with the changes marked in yellow.
- "pre-set" and "preset"
- "flow rate" and "flowrate"
- “Pre-set” has been changed to “preset” and “flow rate” to “flowrate”.
- superscripts becoming subscripts and vice versa (e.g. the Pl at LINE 148 Vs LINE166 and the legend in Figure 4; the legend of figure 4; DCq at LINE 210 and 211 Vs code used in Equation 3)
- Superscripts and subscripts have been corrected.
- Figure 4:
- Old Figure 4 has been finally removed according to the suggestion of reducing the result section.
- in many Figures (5, 6, 10, 11, 12) the numbers in axes have to be written with the dot and not the comma (e.g use 0.24 and not 0,24)
- Commas have been replaced by dots.
- LINE 242 - "(R2 = 91.3 %)". Does 2 have to be superscript?
- The superscript has been corrected
Please review all the measures units: please use SI only (e.g. not L/min but use L min-1 [-1 as superscript]...)
- L/min has been changed to L min-1
Other issues are listed here:
- Introduction section has to be reduced. Despite being a well-written and complete section, in my opinion, the authors went too deep in describing the PWM experimental activities published in previous papers. I suggest reporting their results and not describing all the previous experimental activities carried out.
- Introduction section has been reduced. The description of the previous experiments has been limited to reporting the main results.
- Previous lines 40-43 have been removed “This system is a variable rate technology with a great potential to minimize the application errors caused by varying pressures during operation, as it manages the flowrate at nozzle level with independent solenoid valves. Theoretically,”
- Previous lines 49-55 have been removed, “They concluded that droplet size increases and drift potential decreases when the duty cycle decreases. In particular, for DC below 40 percent the droplet size was severely affected, and the pattern of change was inconsistent, and with 20 percent DC, droplet size was extremely affected, and the pattern of change was clearly inconsistent. As a result, only non-venturi nozzles should be used in PWM systems to reduce such variation in droplet size and nozzle tip pressure, using gauge pressures higher than 276 kPa to reduce pressure”
- Previous lines 62-63 have been removed, “Higher downstream pressure reduction was found for greater pressures and larger nozzles when DC decreased from 100 percent to 10 percent loss across solenoid valves.”
- Previous lines 65-68 have been removed, “for droplets smaller than 100 μm, the volume fraction remained relatively constant or slightly decreased when DC increased, and for droplets between 100 μm and 300 μm, the volume fraction increased with DC and pressure, but decreased for droplets larger than 300 μm.”
- Previous lines 69-71 have been removed, “registering the pressure and flow rate of the nozzles for four DC and pressures of 400 kPa, 500 kPa, 600 kPa and 700 kPa.”
- Previous lines 73-74 have been removed, “when opening and closing the nozzles that depended on the DC, although the width and actuation frequency was found to be accurate.”
-Previous lines 75-77 have been removed, “applying growing frequencies from 5 to 50 Hz at 5 Hz intervals and DC ranging from 10 % to 100 % with 10 % intervals, reaching 1380 kPa. “
- Previous lines 78-80 have been removed, “the valves with the greatest modulation capacity could manipulate flow rates with DC from 20 % to 70 % at 30 Hz frequency, and with DC between 30 % to 70 % at frequencies up to 40 Hz.”.
- Previous lines 82-85 have been removed, “To do so, five hollow-cone nozzles, two different PWM solenoid valves, and five operating pressures were combined. All the parameters, except the spray angle, were affected by the operating pressure, DC, nozzle type (disc orifice size and quantity of holes on core) and solenoid valve design.”
- LINE 117 - "The system pressure (Psys, bar) as..." not sure what "bar" means, is that the pressure measurement unit? if yes pay attention to using bar or Pa and/or kPa.
- The pressure units used were kPa, the mistaken pressure units have been corrected.
- LINE 124 - "The flow rate of each nozzle.." please indicate the model and producer of the balance used to weigh liquid.
- The information about the producer of the balance used to weight liquid has been added (new lines 102-103).
- In general, Figures are quite small. please enlarge them and the text included in the figures.
- All the Figures have been modified, the quality and the size of the figures have been improved.
- LINE 152 - "circuit was not significant,...". Did you conduct tests through statistical software? Please provide values and/or a table with statistical results.
No significant differences were found.
Tabla ANOVA para Pressure (Pa) por Location
|
Fuente |
Suma de Cuadrados |
Gl |
Cuadrado Medio |
Razón-F |
Valor-P |
|
Entre grupos |
2580,0 |
2 |
1290,0 |
0,02 |
0,9802 |
|
Intra grupos |
1,74237E6 |
27 |
64532,2 |
|
|
|
Total (Corr.) |
1,74495E6 |
29 |
|
|
|
- LINES 159-160: "The measured flow rate was estimated for individual nozzles by weighting the water collected during a fixed time." this should be deleted because it belongs to the material and methods section
- The sentence “The measured flow rate was estimated for individual nozzles by weighting the water collected during a fixed time." Has been removed.
- Please review all equations. avoid using text in equations (e.g. equations 4 and 5) and pay attention to using "x" also as incognita and NOT as a multiplication symbol (it exist a specific symbol for that)
- The text in equations have been removed and the multiplication symbol has been inserted as mathematical symbol in all the equations (equations (1) to (7)).
- Flowrate variables used in the equations have been modified, Qmeasured to Qm; Qtheoretical to Qnozzle.
- The variables previously considered DCth and DCq have been replaced by the ratios Rth and Rq.
- The explanation of the duty cycles and ratios (previous lines 133-141) have been improved (new lines 113-123).
- The different time parameters have been defined (new lines 202-203).
- In general Result section is too long. I suggest going directly to the point, first, by explaining the main findings, and second by reporting results, values, and statistical data.
- The Result section has been reduced according to the reviewer comments. Section 3.1. (“Registration of pressure at three circuit points”) has been removed. Previous lines 144-157 have been removed from the result section, “Three pressure points were monitored in the sprayer for different DC settings: the overall pressure in the system (Psys) after the pump and before the flow division; the pressure for the left sectors at the entry of S1 and S2 (Pl), and the pressure for the right sectors at the entry of S3 and S4 (Pr). The system pressure and the pressure for the right sectors were similar (Psys = Pr), while the pressure in the left sectors (Pl) was 30 Pa below in average for all cases, as plotted in Figure 4. This systematic error pointed at a problem in the sensor measuring Pl, that was later confirmed and required a sensor change before field testing. Nevertheless, the pressure drop between the pump outlet and the nozzle circuit was not significant, with most of the dynamic effects related to the pulsing actuation. Figure 4 points at a relevant issue when selecting the system pressure for automatic mode, because the solenoid valves cannot operate above 1000 Pa, and if the system pressure is set before operation with DC over 70 %, when the automatic system lowers the DC under 50 % to reduce the flow rate, the pressure may increase above the recommended limit and damage the valves.”.
- Figure 4 has been removed
- Previous lines 170-177 have been removed from the Result section, “Furthermore, the manufacturer tables are thought to be used for laminar flows, and the highly oscillating pulsing phenomena of solenoid valves operating at 10 Hz pose two determinant facts: 1. The pressure changes rapidly and the average pressure along the cycle, and how it is calculated, may not be comparable to the conventional pressure of laminar flows. ; 2. The changing dynamics of pulsing along the range of DC operation between 10 % and 90 % might require different interpretations of circuit pressure according to the DC commanded”
- LINE 179 - "(p value = 0.000)..." I wondering if the p-value is perfectly 0 or maybe it could be written as X E-10 or as it should be.
- P value format has been corrected
- Table 1 - Same as LINE 179
- P value format has been corrected
- Figure 10 - I suggest adding in Y axis the title "Preset DC cycles"
- Y axis of Figure 10 (new Figure 9) has been corrected adding the information suggested by the reviewers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This scientific paper was initiated to purpose the flow rate control of spraying systems with pulse-width-modulated solenoid valves was been implemented for precision herbicide application in commodity crops. A new developed air-assisted orchard sprayer with 6 shelf hollow disc-cone nozzles was studied, such that flow rates and pressures were registered by a computer for different duty cycles commanded by an operator from 10 % to 100 % in intervals of 10 %. A correction 13 model has been proposed to adjust the pre-set duty cycles to make sure that the necessary spray flow 14 rate was released as precisely commanded by prescription maps.
I have some questions about this paper.
In the chapter 1. Introduction please provide a detailed description of the literature with several references that have dealt with the PWM method of pesticide control in the past.
In the chapter 2. Materials and Methods please provide a detailed description of the materials and methods of your work. The current description is very modest.
Line 162: write the equation specifically according to the journal instructions. Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
Line 163: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
All Figures in the manuscript should have the same font and the font size.
Line 200: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
Line 211: what does the tag mean DC (DCq) ???
Line 212: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
Figure 10: please mark the parameter on the y-axis.
Line 242: R2 or R2 ???
Line 243: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
Line 248: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
Line 250: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
Please add chapter: 6. Future work
After major revision I will reconsider if the manuscript is suitable for publication in journal Agriculture.
Author Response
This scientific paper was initiated to purpose the flow rate control of spraying systems with pulse-width-modulated solenoid valves was been implemented for precision herbicide application in commodity crops. A new developed air-assisted orchard sprayer with 6 shelf hollow disc-cone nozzles was studied, such that flow rates and pressures were registered by a computer for different duty cycles commanded by an operator from 10 % to 100 % in intervals of 10 %. A correction 13 model has been proposed to adjust the pre-set duty cycles to make sure that the necessary spray flow 14 rate was released as precisely commanded by prescription maps.
I have some questions about this paper.
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. We have revised this manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestions. We address comments specific to each reviewer and we attach a pdf with the changes highlighted in yellow.
In the chapter 1. Introduction please provide a detailed description of the literature with several references that have dealt with the PWM method of pesticide control in the past.
More references have been added to proof the widely usage of PWM applications.
New review references (new [15], [16] and [17]) about sensors for variable blast sprayer applications have been added, new lines 27-29).
Wandkar, S.V.; Bhatt, Y.C.; Jain, H.K. et al. Real-Time Variable Rate Spraying in Orchards and Vineyards: A Review. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 2018, 99, 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-018-0289-4
Abbas, I.; Liu, J.; Faheem, M.; Noor, R.S.; Shaikh, S.A.; Solangi, K.A.; Raza, S.M.; Different sensor based intelligent spraying systems in Agriculture.Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 2020, 316,12265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2020.112265.
Wei, Z.; Xue, X.; Salcedo, R.; Zhang, Z.; Gil, E.; Sun, Y.; Li, Q.; Shen, J.; He, Q.; Dou, Q.; Zhang, Y. Key Technologies for an Orchard Variable-Rate Sprayer: Current Status and Future Prospects. Agronomy 2023, 13, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010059
Besides, according to a previous reviewer comment the introduction section has been reduced. The description of the previous experiments has been limited to reporting the main results (previous lines 40-43; 49-55; 62-63; 65-68; 69-71; 73-74; 75-77; 78-80 and 82-85 have been removed.
In the chapter 2. Materials and Methods please provide a detailed description of the materials and methods of your work. The current description is very modest.
Material and methods section has been improved.
- New information has been added (new lines 100-103) and the explanation of the different variables has been modified.
- The nomenclature used has been revised and unified, the same nomenclature has been used for the same meaning. “Observed flowrate” has been changed to “measured flowrate”.
- The explanation of the DC and ratio parameters has been improved (line113-123) and the nomenclature corrected according to their definitions.
- Certain variables used in the equations have been modified and simplified (Qmeasured to Qm; Qtheoretical to Qnozzle; DCth to Rth; DCq to Rq).
Line 162: write the equation specifically according to the journal instructions. Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
- The parameters of the equation have been described separately according to the journal instructions.
Line 163: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
- The parameters of the equation have been described separately according to the journal instructions.
All Figures in the manuscript should have the same font and the font size.
- The style of the figures has been unified. All the statistical figures have been remade using the same software. Besides, the size, quality and resolution have been improved.
Line 200: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
- The parameters of the equation have been described separately according to the journal instructions.
Line 211: what does the tag mean DC (DCq) ???
- The parameter´s subscripts and superscript have been corrected.
Besides:
- Flowrate variables used in the equations have been modified, Qmeasured to Qm; Qtheoretical to Qnozzle.
- The variables previously considered DCth and DCq have been replaced by the ratios Rth and Rq.
Line 212: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
- The parameters of the equation have been described separately according to the journal instructions.
Figure 10: please mark the parameter on the y-axis.
- Y axis of Figure 10 (new Figure 9) has been corrected adding the information suggested by the reviewers.
Line 242: R2 or R2 ???
- R2 has been replaced by R2.
Line 243: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
- The parameters of the equation have been described separately according to the journal instructions.
Line 248: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
- The parameters of the equation have been described separately according to the journal instructions.
Line 250: Please describe the parameters of the equation separately according to the journal instructions.
- The parameters of the equation have been described separately according to the journal instructions.
Please add chapter: 6. Future work
- A “Future work” section has been added (new lines 293-298).
A previous correction model has been proposed in this paper to determine the actual duty cycle adjusted to measured flowrates. However, the established model has been developed for certain experimental conditions. Further research will be necessary to validate the proposed correction model in the real application of prescription maps to commercial vineyards.
After major revision I will reconsider if the manuscript is suitable for publication in journal Agriculture.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
=== same as attachment ===
The authors present a PWM variable spray flow correction control method for pesticide application in vineyards. The researchers who involve variable spraying based on PWM can benefit from it. However, the following problems still exist in the paper, therefore, this manuscript may be accepted after major modification.
1、A variety of sensors for variable application are proposed in lines 28-29, but only one reference is cited; more should be cited to proof the widely usage of PWM applications.
2、Figures 4-8 and 10-13 should be unified in style and resolution. It looks like different software is used to make the figure, but the style and position of the title and the position of the legend still should be consistent.
3、The unit of pressure in Figure 4 is Pa, but “bar” was marked in the legend. The value and unit of the spray pressure should be confirmed. Typically, application pressure should be in range of 0.3 – 1.0MPa (3-10 bar). Anyway, 550 Pa or 550 bar is unbelievable.
4、In line 154, The authors propose that “the solenoid valves cannot operate above 1000 Pa”, as pointed out in point 3, spray pressure should be within a reasonable range.
5、Multiple flow rates and duty cycles with different meanings are mentioned in Figures 5-8 and 10-13. Please use the same nomenclature for the same meaning. Existing expressions may create confusion for the reader. For examples, “theoretical Flow DC” in Figure 7 is “DCth”？”observed flow-rate” in figure 12 is “Qmeasured”？
6、The calculation of the Qtheoretical is explained in line 131, using Pl only. But the equation in line 162 contains Pl and DCth, why?
7、In equation 1, Qtheoretical, which calculated by DCth (line 162), is used to fit Qmeasured. But DCth is already calculated by Qmeasured and Pl in line 135-137. What is the point of this?
8、Seems like that pressure(Pl, in line 116) of left sector(S1 & S2) and flow-rate ,which only measured in sector 1, are used in calculations. Is the flow rate of the nozzle in the same position in different areas the same?
9、The flow-rate correction model calculated for the sprayers used in the test should be clearly expressed. There should be a equation to show that how to calculate the preset duty cycle from the expected flow rate. Pl can be used in the equation. And show the error of the uncorrected model.
10、The position of subscripts of “DC”, in line 206-211, need to be confirmed as correct.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
The authors present a PWM variable spray flow correction control method for pesticide application in vineyards. The researchers who involve variable spraying based on PWM can benefit from it. However, the following problems still exist in the paper, therefore, this manuscript may be accepted after major modification.
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. We have revised this manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestions. We address comments specific to each reviewer and we attach a pdf with the changes highlighted in yellow.
1、A variety of sensors for variable application are proposed in lines 28-29, but only one reference is cited; more should be cited to proof the widely usage of PWM applications.
New review references (new [15], [16] and [17]) about sensors for variable blast sprayer applications have been added, new lines 27-29).
Wandkar, S.V.; Bhatt, Y.C.; Jain, H.K. et al. Real-Time Variable Rate Spraying in Orchards and Vineyards: A Review. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 2018, 99, 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-018-0289-4
Abbas, I.; Liu, J.; Faheem, M.; Noor, R.S.; Shaikh, S.A.; Solangi, K.A.; Raza, S.M.;Different sensor based intelligent spraying systems in Agriculture.Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 2020, 316,12265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2020.112265.
Wei, Z.; Xue, X.; Salcedo, R.; Zhang, Z.; Gil, E.; Sun, Y.; Li, Q.; Shen, J.; He, Q.; Dou, Q.; Zhang, Y. Key Technologies for an Orchard Variable-Rate Sprayer: Current Status and Future Prospects. Agronomy 2023, 13, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010059
2、Figures 4-8 and 10-13 should be unified in style and resolution. It looks like different software is used to make the figure, but the style and position of the title and the position of the legend still should be consistent.
- The style of the figures has been unified. All the statistical figures have been remade using the same software. Besides, the size, quality and resolution have been improved.
3、The unit of pressure in Figure 4 is Pa, but “bar” was marked in the legend. The value and unit of the spray pressure should be confirmed. Typically, application pressure should be in range of 0.3 – 1.0MPa (3-10 bar). Anyway, 550 Pa or 550 bar is unbelievable.
- The units of the pressure have been corrected.
4、In line 154, The authors propose that “the solenoid valves cannot operate above 1000 Pa”, as pointed out in point 3, spray pressure should be within a reasonable range.
- The units of the pressure have been corrected.
5、Multiple flow rates and duty cycles with different meanings are mentioned in Figures 5-8 and 10-13. Please use the same nomenclature for the same meaning. Existing expressions may create confusion for the reader. For examples, “theoretical Flow DC” in Figure 7 is “DCth”？”observed flow-rate” in figure 12 is “Qmeasured”？
- The nomenclature used has been revised and unified, the same nomenclature has been used for the same meaning. “Observed flowrate” has been changed to “measured flowrate”.
- The explanation of the DC and ratio parameters has been improved (line113-123) and the nomenclature corrected according to their definitions.
- Certain variables used in the equations have been modified and simplified (Qmeasured to Qm; Qtheoretical to Qnozzle; DCth to Rth; DCq to Rq).
6、The calculation of the Qtheoretical is explained in line 131, using Pl only. But the equation in line 162 contains Pl and DCth, why?
Thank you for the interesting question.
The Qnozzle (previously Qtheoretical) is calculated from the manufacturer tables for the registered pressure when the equipment is applying product. When the DC is 100 %, the equipment is applying product constantly. However, for DC lower than 100 %, the amount of time that the nozzles are not applying product should be considered, a reduction of spraying time has been applied according to the DC.
Thanks to the reviewer contribution, equation (1) has been modified and Qtheoretical has been replaced by Qnozzle. The explanation in previous lines 159-163 has been replaced by a new explanation in lines 126-132).
Besides, a new equation (2) and an explanation (new lines 140-143) have been included.
7、In equation 1, Qtheoretical, which calculated by DCth (line 162), is used to fit Qmeasured. But DCth is already calculated by Qmeasured and Pl in line 135-137. What is the point of this?
- Qnozzle (previously Qtheoretical) is calculated based on the pressures registered and taken from the manufacturer’s catalogue for a given pressure. Rth (before DCth) is only included in new equation (2) to indicate the reduction of flowrate related to DC lower than 100%, considering the proportion of time when the nozzles are not spraying.
Thanks to the reviewer´s suggestions Qtheoretical has been replaced to Qnozzle, the equation extracted from the tables of the manufacturer’s catalogue has not been defined (only indicated) and a new explanation has been added.
8、Seems like that pressure(Pl, in line 116) of left sector(S1 & S2) and flow-rate ,which only measured in sector 1, are used in calculations. Is the flow rate of the nozzle in the same position in different areas the same?
- The pressures in the two sectors have been considered similar based on previous test.
9、The flow-rate correction model calculated for the sprayers used in the test should be clearly expressed. There should be a equation to show that how to calculate the preset duty cycle from the expected flow rate. Pl can be used in the equation. And show the error of the uncorrected model.
- According to the reviewer suggestion, a new equation has been added (equation (2)) relating expected flowrate to pressure Pl and DC. The flowrate correction model calculated has been explained (new lines 133-139). The standard error of the estimate of the corrected models has been included in the flowrate models (new lines 129-130 and 218, from equations (1) and (5)).
10、The position of subscripts of “DC”, in line 206-211, need to be confirmed as correct.
- The subscripts of “DC” have been corrected.
Besides:
Experiment pressure and flowrates range values have been included.
The linear relations stablished between preset DC and Rth (previous DCth), Rq (previous DCq) and DCt.
Previous linear relation presented in equations (2) and Figure 7 have been modified. A sigmoidal relation has been added (new equation (3) and Figure 6).
Previous linear relation presented in equations (3) and Figure 8 have been modified. A sigmoidal relation has been added (new equation (4) and Figure 7).
Previous linear relation presented in equations (6) and Figure 13 have been modified. A sigmoidal relation has been added (new equation (7) and Figure 12).
Discussion section has been improved.
Conclusions have been improved.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please pay attention to the L.ha-1, remove the "." between the L and ha everywhere.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors took into account all my comments, the article is suitable for publication in the scientific journal Agriculture.
