Low-Damage Corn Threshing Technology and Corn Threshing Devices: A Review of Recent Developments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the article and the information contained in the abstract suggest a slightly different compactness to what is written in the body of the article. It is therefore necessary to either change the title of the article or, what will be more beneficial for the audience, its content. The title announces an article on the review of working unit solutions currently applicable or being introduced in machines (harvesters) for grain maize harvesting in terms of reducing threshing losses. Meanwhile, the content contains descriptions of the construction and operation of only the threshing units, while the volume of the title losses is also influenced by other harvester units, which were only mentioned. Besides, in my opinion, in such a work, there should also be a condensed, brief description of the theory of threshing as the main stage of the analysed technological process.

Subsection 2.3 on the application of numerical simulation methods in the study of maize threshing processes does not directly address the authors' proposed scope of their article. For this reason, it should be removed from the article.

The authors write in the abstract (Line 15 and 16) that in their paper they have made a worldwide review of the progress in research and the status of the application of different maize threshing technologies and maize threshing machinery. They add that this will be a review paper. The bibliography provided does not meet this requirement, as up to 69% of the publications are by Chinese researchers and scientists. There are marginal papers from, for example, Western European researchers and no American papers. There is also no review of material published by the harvester manufacturers cited in the text.

The recorded conclusions are mostly derived from the content of the thesis, but they are mainly statements. There is a lack of strong utilitarian conclusions and a brief substantive summary of the technology review made in the body of the work.

Most of the drawings were produced in poor graphic quality. They need to be improved. The diagram in Figure 4 needs to be enlarged and perhaps rotated. Its graphic quality needs to be improved. For a single drawing, both the drawing and its caption should be on the same page. For drawings whose authors are not co-authors of this publication, the sources of acquisition of the photograph, diagram, etc. must be stated. And add them to the bibliography of the work.

The paper is thematically and logically incoherent in several places as indicated in the commercials in the attached article file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Not all the terms used in the paper for the names of the components of the threshing unit, the parts of the maize plant, are correct, appropriate. The article should be seriously corrected from a linguistic point of view and given to a native speaker with a very good knowledge of the technical vocabulary in this area to correct.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The figures should be more clearly expressed, such as Figure 4 and so on. 

The phrases which describe the same indexes need to be showed in the same  words, such as “the breaking rate or the broken kernel rate”, “concave clearance or threshing clearance”, and so on.

The language in the manuscript needs further improvement, some sentences need be modified, such as “motion” is not appropriate in “The speed of threshing cylinder, concave clearance and feeding rate are the important motion parameters”.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. In line 136, the research conclusion mentioned in Reference 40 is “the feeding mode of corn ears parallel to the threshing 138 cylinder was better.” It deviates from the theme of this section. Is it appropriate to put it here?

 

2. In line 160, “the results showed that the grain speed had the greatest effect on the damage degree, while the kernel size and shape had the least effect. When the collision surface is polyurethane, the breakage degree is one fifth of that when the collision surface is steel, and one sixth of that when the collision surface is concrete.” The effects of grain speed and collision surface material on the breakage rate are mentioned here. It deviates from the theme of this section.

 

3. Figure 4 appears to be a bit blurred, it is recommended to replace or redraw it.

 

4. In this paper, the introduction of figure 6 is not corresponding to the figure number, T670-T760. In addition, it is mentioned that the machine is mainly used for rice and wheat operations, and is it also common with corn harvest? This can be explained in the text. If possible, it is easier to understand Fig.6a from wheat harvest to corn harvest.

 

5. The definition of Tangential-axial Flow Corn Threshing Device in Section 3.3 can be introduced together with other types of corn threshing devices in the first section of Chapter 3.

English language fine. No issues detected.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been revised in line with my previous comments. The comments and conclusions made in the previous review have been taken into account.