Analysis and Experimental of Seeding Process of Pneumatic Split Seeder for Cotton
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In order to achieve uniform hole sowing of single-grain cotton seeds, simulation tests were conducted on the pipe angle and air inlet structure, and the airflow distribution and pressure loss of each structure were analyzed to obtain the optimal seed conveying pipe structure. In addition, the influence of working parameters on sowing performance was studied, and a comparative study was conducted between bench tests and simulation experiments. The research is innovative and can provide relevant references for the research on improving the quality of cotton mechanized sowing.
1. It is recommended to further improve the level of English writing.
2. There are some unclear images and legends, and it is recommended to modify these images.
3. Two figures 15 appear and should be modified.
4. In a single factor experiment, what are the criteria for the selection of factor level ranges? Suggest explaining in the text.
5. The shape of the seed has a great influence on the CFD-DEM simulation results. It is suggested to show the seed shape model in the paper and explain the rationality of its structure.
6. In the section "3.5.5. Analysis of Cotton Seed Transport Process...", there are only pictures, but no specific analysis of relevant research results. It is recommended to add.
7. “the number of velocity fluctuations of cotton seed particles in the side four rows of seed delivery tubes was significantly more than that in the center row of seed delivery tubes”. However, when studying the impact of working parameters on operation performance (3.5.6. Influence of working parameters on seeding effect), why only the center row is selected for data statistics?
It is recommended to further improve the level of English writing.
Author Response
Dear experts;
Thank you very much for reviewing my article in your busy schedule, I have read all your suggestions carefully and made serious revisions. My revisions are as follows:
Point 1: It is recommended to further improve the level of English writing.
Response 1: Thanks to the expert's careful reading, the full text has been carefully checked and revised, and the text changes have been marked using the "Track Changes" function inside word.
Point 2: There are some unclear images and legends, and itis recommended to modify these images.
Response 2: Unclear images and legends have been revised and re-produced, e.g., Figures 2 through 5 and Figures 7 through 16.
Point 3: Two figures 15 appear and should be modified.
Response 3: Two numbers 15 have been revised to revise the duplicate number 15 to the number 17.
Point 4: In a single factor experiment, what are the criteria for the selection of factor level ranges?Suggest explaining in the text.
Response 4: The range of the positive pressure factor level was selected by the pre-experiment simulation, which found that when the positive pressure was larger, the uniformity of the seed spacing in the seed delivery tube became worse, and the initial mixing area of air-solid would produce a larger vortex area, resulting in more reseeding and leakage; the rotation speed of the hole sower was calculated by the corresponding theoretical formula based on the forward speed of the machine in the field.
Point 5: The shape of the seed has a great influence on the CFD-DEM simulation results. It is suggested to show the seed shape model in the paper and explain the rationality of its structure.
Response 5: The variety of cotton seeds, the actual physical model, the actual size dimensions and the simulation model have been added in the text and the corresponding text has been added. (In lines 242 to 246)
Point 6: In the section "3.5.5. Analysis of Cotton Seed Transport Process...", there are only pictures, but no specific analysis of relevant research results. It Is recommended to add.
Response 6: Relevant research analysis has been added to the text. (In lines 433 to 450)
Point 7: “the number of velocity fluctuations of cotton seed particles in the side four rows of seed delivery tubes was significantly more than that in the center row of seed delivery tubes” However, when studying the impact of working parameters on operation performance (3.5.6. Influence of working parameters on seeding effect), why only the center row is selected for data statistics?
Response 7: Because in the 6-row simulation test, each seed pipe is determined according to the row spacing of 1 film 6 rows (66cm + 10cm), and the self-made seed metering device is difficult to carry out the experimental study of the side 4 rows of seed pipe under the existing width of the JPS-12 seed metering device test bench. However, in order to verify the influence of working parameters on the seeding effect in the simulation test and bench test, only the central row can be selected for data statistics.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper, but more attention should be given to details.
- pg. 2, row 55: the reference should be Endrerud [14] and Qi et al. [15]
- in many places the references are written wrong: eg. Lei et al [ ] instead of Lei et al. [ ]
- pg. 3, row 106-107: "...on the surface of the drum in the wrong row...." - this is not clear
- pg. 5, Figure 2: an explanation for the forces is needed
- pg. 5, eq. (6): there is a mistake in the first equation as the friction force Ff is the product of the friction coefficient and normal force
- pg. 8, rows 272-273: one -seeded grain in a hole;...0-seeded grains in a hole
pg. 9, row 301: Table 1
pg. 10, Table 2: the pipe angle should be in degrees, not mm; the pressure should be in [Pa] not [pa] - this typing error is present in all the tables
- figures 10-13: I think it is more clear if you use rev/min and not r/min and again Pa not pa in figure 12
English language should be checked because there are incomplete phrases and in some places the lack of punctuation marks makes the text hard to understand.
Author Response
Dear expert;
Thank you very much for reviewing my article in your busy schedule. I have thought carefully about your suggestions and have made the corresponding changes, which are as follows:
Point 1: This is an interesting paper, but more attention should be given to details.
Response 1: Thank you very much for taking the time to read it, and thank you for your comments on the article. The details in the article have been revised as requested by the teacher, and marked using the "Track Changes" function inside word.
Point 2: - pg. 2, row 55: the reference should be Endrerud [14] and Qi et al. [15]; - in many places the references are written wrong: eg. Lei et al [ ] instead of Lei et al. [ ]
Response 2: The wrong references have been corrected as suggested by the instructor and marked using the "Track Changes" function in word.
Point 3: - pg. 3, row 106-107: "...on the surface of the drum in the wrong row...." - this is not clear.
Response 3: The unclear phrase in the text has been revised to read:“When the air-absorbing drum rotates clockwise, the cotton seeds on the upper layer of the seed box are adsorbed to the suction holes due to the pressure difference and rotated together with the air-absorbing drum.”
Point 4: - pg. 5, Figure 2: an explanation for the forces is needed.
Response 4: The explanation of the forces on the cotton seeds in Figure 2 has been explained in the text.(in rows 203 to 209)
Point 5: - pg. 5, eq. (6): there is a mistake in the first equation as the friction force Ff is the product of the friction coefficient and normal force.
Response 5: Already modified in Equation 6.
Point 6: - pg. 8, rows 272-273: one -seeded grain in a hole;...0-seeded grains in a hole.
Response 6: The text explanation in lines 272 to 273 has been changed. (in lines 301 to 302).
Point 7: pg. 9, row 301: Table 1
Response 7: Row 301 “table” has been modified to “table1”. (in row 329)
Point 8: pg. 10, Table 2: the pipe angle should be in degrees, not mm; the pressure should be in [Pa] not [pa] - this typing error is present in all the tables;- figures 10-13: I think it is more clear if you use rev/min and not r/min and again Pa not pa in figure 12.
Response 8: The unit of pipe angle in Table 2 has been modified to “ ° “; “pa” in all tables has been modified to “Pa”; “r/min” has been modified to “rev/min”.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1) The novelty of the research needs to be justified n the Introduction section.
2) Line 202: 'C' has been mentioned as coefficient of traction. use correct terminology for 'C'.
3) Have you done any statistical analysis on the experimental data?
4) What mesh size was selected to carry out the analysis and why?
5) In Introduction section, following study related to pneumatic planters resource conserving mechanization technology may be added to strengthen the manuscript: Kumar, N., Upadhyay, G., Choudhary, S., Patel, B., Chhokar, R. S., & Gill, S. C. (2023). Resource conserving mechanization technologies for dryland agriculture. In Enhancing Resilience of Dryland Agriculture Under Changing Climate: Interdisciplinary and Convergence Approaches (pp. 657-688). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
6) Line 488: Write 'edem' in capital letters.
7) What is Replay rate? Use standard terminology for the parameters. is it multiple index?
8) The size of seed delivery tube and the seed dropping height needs to be mentioned.
9) The size of cotton seeds needs to be mentioned.
10) How the theoretical analysis carried out was used in simulation study? It is not understood.
Author Response
Dear expert;
Thank you very much for reviewing my article in your busy schedule. I have thought carefully about your suggestions and have made the corresponding changes, which are as follows:
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The novelty of the research needs to be justified n the Introduction section.
Response 1: The novelty of the study has been additionally argued in the introduction section.(in rows 62 to 65; 81 to 100;)
Point 2: Line 202: 'C' has been mentioned as coefficient of traction. use correct terminology for 'C'.
Response 2: has been redefined and modified to read:”C is the drag coefficient”.(in line 207)
Point 3: Have you done any statistical analysis on the experimental data?
Response 3: It was done. In the simulation test through the post-processing module of EDEM, the simulation process was played through 0.1 times speed, and after the airflow was stabilized, 250 simulated particles were recorded continuously, and each group of tests was tested three times, so as to statistically calculate the mean value of each group of test index;in the bench test, the video recorded by HD camera was played back to observe the distribution of cotton seed particles on the oil belt, and the error segment caused by the unstable air pressure when the seeder first started to move and the error segment before the seed rower stopped working were eliminated. 250 cotton seed data were also measured continuously, and each group of tests was repeated three times, and the average value of each index was finally selected.
Point 4: What mesh size was selected to carry out the analysis and why?
Response 4: The main considerations when choosing the grid size are computational accuracy and computational time, and the relevant textual arguments have been added in the text. (in lines 250 to 263)
Point 5: In Introduction section, following study related to pneumatic planters resource conserving mechanization technology may be added to strengthen the manuscript: Kumar, N., Upadhyay, G., Choudhary, S., Patel, B., Chhokar, R. S., & Gill, S. C. (2023). Resource conserving mechanization technologies for dryland agriculture. In Enhancing Resilience of Dryland Agriculture Under Changing Climate: Interdisciplinary and Convergence Approaches (pp. 657-688). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, it has been added in the introduction and the high level of literature you recommended has been cited. (in lines 86 to 91).
Point 6: Line 488: Write 'edem' in capital letters.
Response 6: 'edem' has all been changed to "EDEM". (in line 531)
Point 7: What is Replay rate? Use standard terminology for the parameters. is it multiple index?
Response 7: What I wanted to express was the repeat seeding rate, there was a mistake in the expression, now the replay rate has been modified to multiple seeding rate, the relevant changes are marked using the tracking modification function in word.
Point 8: The size of seed delivery tube and the seed dropping height needs to be mentioned.
Response 8: The size of the seed delivery tube and the height of the seed drop have both been added in the article.(in lines 284 and 287)
Point 9: The size of cotton seeds needs to be mentioned.
Response 9: References to varieties, actual sizes and simulation models in cotton have been added. (in rows 241 to 249)
Point 10: How the theoretical analysis carried out was used in simulation study? It is not understood.
Response 10: From the analysis of pressure loss theory and the analysis of cotton seed force theory, the factors affecting the seed transport law and seeding effect: negative pressure size, material to air ratio, pipe length, pipe diameter, pipe curvature, and then put the theoretical analysis of the parameters into FLUENT and EDEM, so as to carry out the relevant simulation research.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The study has important theoretical reference and practical application value for the study of cotton conveying tubes and related supporting key components. In general, the overall content of the study is reasonable, the paper is well organized and described with a clear hierarchy, but I think there are a few points need to be revised.
1. The industry standard description is not accurate enough, please check it carefully.
2. The simulation model of cotton seeds should be added appropriately and the related text should be introduced appropriately; Table 1: Where did the simulation parameter settings come from? Please add the description.
3. The numbers of citation and color scale in the simulation diagram are too small, and it is suggested to increase them.
4. The speed of the hole sower is not accurate enough, please add the correspondence between the forward speed of the machine and the speed of the hole sower.
5. Table 2: The unit of pipe angle should be °, not mm.
6. Section 3.5.5 lacks a textual description of the data and should include a corresponding textual analysis.
7. The image annotation is repeated with two 15s, please revise the annotation.
I think the author can change the English language in the text as appropriate
Author Response
Dear expert;
Thank you very much for reviewing my article in your busy schedule. I have thought carefully about your suggestions and have made the corresponding changes, which are as follows:
Point 1: The industry standard description is not accurate enough, please check it carefully.
Response 1: Expressions about industry standards have been reworked in the article. (in lines 467 to 468; in lines 546 to 547)
Point 2: The simulation model of cotton seeds should be added appropriately and the related text should be introduced appropriately; Table 1: Where did the simulation parameter settings come from? Please add the description.
Response 2: The species of cotton seeds, actual size size, and simulation model have been added in the article, and the relevant textual analysis has been added in the article; the simulation parameters in Table 1 are quoted from the relevant parameters inside the high-level articles of your journal, which contain parameters of cotton seeds, steel, ABS plastic, etc. The relevant references have been quoted inside the article. (in row 328)
Point 3: The numbers of citation and color scale in the simulation diagram are too small, and it is suggested to increase them.
Response 3: The unclear pictures in the text have all been revised and reattached.
Point 4: The speed of the hole sower is not accurate enough, please add the correspondence between the forward speed of the machine and the speed of the hole sower.
Response 4: The speed of the hole sower is calculated according to the actual speed of the machine in the field by the relevant theoretical formula, and the relevant text has been added in the article.
Point 5: Table 2: The unit of pipe angle should be °, not mm.
Response 5: In Table 2, the angle unit has been revised to "°".
Point 6: Section 3.5.5 lacks a textual description of the data and should include a corresponding textual analysis.
Response 6: Section 3.5.5 has been revised to section 3.6.5 and the text of the corresponding section has been added to the article. (in lines 426 to 449)
Point 7: The image annotation is repeated with two 15 s, please revise the annotation.
Response 7: Since an extra figure has been added to the article, the two numbers 15 have been revised to numbers 16 and 17 respectively.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
1. The paper title is “Simulation and experimental study of a split pneumatic cotton
film seeder”.But the main content of the article is the structural optimization analysis of the seed delivery pipe, and it is recommended to adjust the paper title.
2. Does the seed delivery pipe vibrate during operation ? If it vibrates, does it consider the influence of vibration on the seeding performance of the seed delivery pipe ?
3. In the simulation test, what is the source of the material parameters ? Is through the parameter calibration test or reference to other people 's data, in addition, the range of plastic is too wide, it is recommended to thinning the material of the seed delivery pipe and the material parameters of some specific.
4. In paragraph 428, the results of the simulation test of sowing performance are in line with national standards. In paragraph 503, the results of the simulation test of the simulation test are in line with industry standards. What is the source basis of national standards and industry standards ?
5. In Fig.10, the analysis of Figure 10 is not deep enough and needs to be elaborated according to specific values.
6. In Fig.11, the seed trajectory should be clearer.
7. In Fig.12, Fig.13, the process of cotton seed transmission under different positive pressure should be analyzed in detail according to Fig.12 and Fig.13.
8. The description in paragraph 454 should be Figure 16.
9. It is recommended that Table 4 and Figure 16 be placed in paragraph 4.2.
10. There are incorrect expressions for Fx and Fy in formula 6.
11. On the line 200,“G is the acceleration of gravity” should be “G is the gravity”.
The grammar and format need to be further improved.
Author Response
Dear expert;
Thank you very much for reviewing my article in your busy schedule. I have thought carefully about your suggestions and have made the corresponding changes, which are as follows:
Point 1: The paper title is “Simulation and experimental study of a split pneumatic cotton film seeder”.But the main content of the article is the structural optimization analysis of the seed delivery pipe, and it is recommended to adjust the paper title.
Response 1: The title has been adjusted to:“Simulation and experimental study of seed delivery tube and hole sower of pneumatic split cotton planter.”
Point 2: Does the seed delivery pipe vibrate during operation ? If it vibrates, does it consider the influence of vibration on the seeding performance of the seed delivery pipe ?
Response 2: In the ideal state set in the simulation test, the seed tube will not vibrate; in the field test, there will be irregular vibration of the seed tube, but it is difficult to simulate the actual irregular vibration in the existing homemade seed dispenser bench test, so the vibration of the seed tube is not considered in the bench test for the time being, and it needs to be studied and improved later.
Point 3: In the simulation test, what is the source of the material parameters ? Is through the parameter calibration test or reference to other people 's data, in addition, the range of plastic is too wide, it is recommended to thinning the material of the seed delivery pipe and the material parameters of some specific.
Response 3: These parameters are quoted from the relevant parameters inside the high level articles of your journal, which contain parameters of cotton species, steel, ABS plastic, etc. The relevant references have been quoted inside the articles. (In line 329), the plastic material is ABS, which has been added in Table 1.
Point 4: In paragraph 428, the results of the simulation test of sowing performance are in line with national standards. In paragraph 503, the results of the simulation test of the simulation test are in line with industry standards. What is the source basis of national standards and industry standards?
Response 4: In lines 428 and 503 is a standard that is misrepresented; the narrative of the relevant industry standard is not accurate enough and has been modified accordingly in the article (in lines 468 to 469; 548 to 550), and its standard basis is derived from China's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in the "Outline of Agricultural Machinery Promotion and Identification" published in 2019.
Point 5: In Fig.10, the analysis of Figure 10 is not deep enough and needs to be elaborated according to specific values.
Response 5: Figure 10 has been revised to Figure 11, and the associated analysis text has been restated. (in lines 405 to 411)
Point 6: In Fig.11, the seed trajectory should be clearer.
Response 6: Figure 11 has been revised to Figure 12, the figure legend and labeling have been enlarged, and the whole figure has been re-revised and presented.
Point 7: In Fig.12, Fig.13, the process of cotton seed transmission under different positive pressure should be analyzed in detail according to Fig.12 and Fig.13.
Response 7: Figures 12 and 13 have been modified to Figures 13 and 14, and the analysis for Figures 13 and 14 has been added to the text. (in lines 433 to 450)
Point 8: The description in paragraph 454 should be Figure 16.
Response 8: Modified to Figure 17. (in line 498)
Point 9: It is recommended that Table 4 and Figure 16 be placed in paragraph 4.2.
Response 9: Figure 16 has been revised to Figure 17 and the expert advice has been accepted and Table 4 and Figure 17 have been placed in paragraph 4.2. (in lines 497 to 500)
Point 10: There are incorrect expressions for Fx and Fy in formula 6.
Response 10: The expression in Equation 6 has been modified to read: “Where FX is the force of the cotton seed along the direction of motion, N; FY is the force of the cotton seed perpendicular to the direction of motion, N.” (in line 203, row 204)
Point 11: On the line 200,“G is the acceleration of gravity” should be “G is the gravity”.
Response 11: Changed to "G is the gravity" .(in line 205)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
