Discrete Element Model of Oil Peony Seeds and the Calibration of Its Parameters
and Fengyun Sun 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The present work highlights extensive testing of oil peony seeds and model construction and simulation. However, the presentation of manuscript needs extensive modifications.
The paper does not mention the significance or merits of peony oil (human health or any other application).
The Introduction section should not have results (line 70)
3. Results should not be included in material and methodology (line 80-86,90-94,135-137,156-157)
4. The authors have used the word ‘‘We’’ throughout the methodology. They are suggested to be more scientific in presenting methods and results. Standard terminology should be used. Besides, as methodology and results sections have been merged, it is unclear as to where from t he Results actually begin. After material and methods the next heading is conclusion. Heading ‘result’ is missing. This needs to be corrected.
5. In line 110 Symbol S is not explained in the given formula of modulus of elasticity
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Language needs to be improved and has to be more scientific
Author Response
Comment 1: [The paper does not mention the significance or merits of peony oil (human health or any other application)].
Response: [Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the " At the same time the peony oil is as high as 92% of unsaturated fatty acid content, especially the alpha linolenic acid content is over 42%, is known as the world's best cooking oil." in the introduction to illustrate its importance.]
Comment 2: [The Introduction section should not have results (line 70).]
Response: [Thanks for your advice. We have deleted this part of the result.]
Comment 3: [Results should not be included in material and methodology (line 80-86,90-94,135-137.156-157).]
Response: [Thanks for your advice. We have deleted the results contained in the second part, "Materials and Methods", and added the section of laboratory test results at the beginning of the third part, "Results and Discussion".]
Comment 4: [Results should not be included in material and methodology (line 80-86,90-94,135-137.156-157).]
Response: [Thanks for your advice. We have made a comprehensive revision to the English text, which has been marked in red. Secondly, we have corrected the title, which is now divided into four parts: “Introduction”, “Materials and Methods”, “Results and Discussion”, and “Conclusion”.]
Comment 4: [The authors have used the word” we” throughout the methodology. They are suggested to be more scientific in presenting methods and results. Standard terminology should be used. Besides, as methodology and results sections have been merged, it is unclear as to where from the Results actually begin. Alter material and methods the next heading is conclusion. Heading result is missing. This needs to be corrected.]
Response: [Thanks for your advice. We have made a comprehensive revision to the English text, which has been marked in red. Secondly, we have corrected the title, which is now divided into four parts: “Introduction”, “Materials and Methods”, “Results and Discussion”, and “Conclusion”.]
Comment 5: [In line 110 Symbol S is not explained in the given formula of modulus of elasticity.]
Response: [Thanks for pointing out the mistake. We have added the explanation of S.]
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The aim of the study was to determine the optimal DEM parameters of a seed. After fully reading, the manuscript is of good interest and worthy of investigation. Overall, the structure of the article was well organized and relevant conclusions were summarized reasonably. In brief, the manuscript can be considered to be accepted for publication after a minor revision.
(1) The language should be improved carefully. For example, the words like "we", "us", "our" should be avoided in a scientific paper to objectively state the results or phenomena of experiments.
(2) Line 29: "show"->"showed".
(3) Line 70-71: These statements were repeated three times! The experimental results should be removed from this section; The Introduction section mainly was only used to clarify the significance of this research!
(4) Line 75-77: These sentences should be included into the Section 2.1.
(5) Section 2.1: The three dimensions of seeds should be shown in a figure, please add it to the section. Moreover, the seed length L is recommended to be replaced with another letter to avoid confusion between it and the unit L in Line 92. The information of the moisture content of seeds was missing here. The meaning of density of seeds should be clarified. Was the value of 994.8 kg/m3 particle density or volume density? Was it measured based on wet or dry conditions?
Author Response
Reviewer #2
Comment 1: [The language should be improved carefully. For example, the words like "'we", "us", "our” should be avoided in a scientific paper to objectively state the results or phenomena of experiments.]
Response: [Thanks for your advice. We have made a comprehensive revision to the English text, which has been marked in red.]
Comment 2: [Line 29: "show"->"showed”.]
Response: [Thanks for pointing out the mistake. We have modified the tense of “show” to “showed”.]
Comment 3: [Line 70-71: These statements were repeated three times! The experimental results should be removed from this section; The Introduction section mainly was only used to clarify the significance of this research!]
Response: [Thanks for pointing out the mistake. We have made changes in the introduction.]
Comment 4: [Line 75-77: These sentences should be included into the Section 2.1.]
Response: [Thanks for your advice. We have moved these sentences in section 2.1.]
Comment 5: [Section 2.1: The three dimensions of seeds should be shown in a figure, please add it to the section. Moreover, the seed length L is recommended to be replaced with another letter to avoid confusion between it and the unit L in Line 92. The information of the moisture content of seeds was missing here. The meaning of density of seeds should be clarified. Was the value of 994.8kg/m` particle density or volume density? Was it measured based on wet or dry conditions?]
Response: [Thanks for your advice. First of all, we have added a three-dimension representation of the seed, as shown in Figure 1, while L has been changed to H. Secondly, seed moisture content was originally above Section 2.1, now moved to Section 2.1. Finally, based on the moisture content moved to Section 2.1, so the seed density naturally measures this moisture content of the seed.]
