The Spreading Characteristics of Droplets Impacting Wheat Leaves Based on the VOF Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled “Study on the spreading characteristics of droplets impacting wheat leaves based on the VOF model” appears to contain some new information. The study addresses an important problem related to pesticide application and agricultural productivity, specifically the poor targeting and spreading of droplets on the surface of wheat leaves. The work combines experimental observations and numerical simulations to analyze the behavior of droplets impacting wheat leaves under different conditions.

Albeit the manuscript provides valuable insights into the wetting behavior of droplets on wheat leaves, several critical drawbacks are evident those need to be addressed before consideration for publication.

The abstract should be more concise and highlight the key findings and contributions of the study. It should also clearly state the potential implications and benefits of the research in addressing the pesticide targeting problem in wheat crops.

The introduction provides background information but can be strengthened by including more recent studies on the topic. This will help readers understand the significance of the current research in the context of the latest advancements in droplet spreading behavior.

The discussion section could be expanded to include a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the findings. The authors could explore the practical implications of their results in the context of agricultural practices and pesticide application techniques.

The conclusion should be more comprehensive and summarize the main findings in a concise manner. It should also emphasize the practical significance of the research and suggest potential avenues for further exploration.

The language of the manuscript and presentation need improvement. The authors should ensure that the text is free of grammatical errors and ambiguities to enhance readability.

In conclusion, although the study addresses an essential issue related to pesticide application on wheat crops, the manuscript requires significant improvements to meet the standards of a peer-reviewed publication. Addressing the highlighted drawbacks, enhancing the data presentation and analysis, and providing a more robust conclusion will strengthen the scientific merit of the manuscript. Furthermore, the authors should ensure clear and concise writing throughout the manuscript.

The manuscript contains several grammatical errors, unclear sentences, and poorly structured paragraphs. The authors should improve the overall writing clarity and coherence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 Study on the spreading characteristics of droplets impacting  wheat leaves based on the VOF model

Manucript studied the the dynamic behavior of  droplets with different diameters (400-550 micrometers) falling on the surface of wheat leaves at different  heights (2-16 cm) using contact-angle-measuring instruments and a high-speed camera. Several numerical models are also addressed.  The results show that, with an increase in the initial diameter and initial velocity of the droplet, the maximum diameter of the droplet during the spreading process also gradually increases. After the droplet impacts the wheat leaves, the droplet-spreading diameter first increases and then decreases.

 

The results are sound, the redaction need to be revised by a person fluent in written english. Some details about experiments must be given

 

The methology is correct and the discussion very clear. Figures and tables are OK.

The data about the equipment  for contact angle measuring instrument model is SDC-200S needs  more details about Brand name.

 

The wheat leaves need more details, specie, ..is that is common wheat (T. aestivum)?, please provide more details about grown state of leaves (Young crop, Month before harvest, Right before harvest?

 

 

Some minor points

The description of Weber number , page 4, top has not the same Font style than those in equation 1. Please uniform this. Also m3 the “3 “ must be a superindex

 

the gravity acceleration is turned on, and the vector is 202 set to-9.81 m / s2 in the Y-axis direction….please change to.. the gravity acceleration is turned on, and the vector is  set to-9.81 m / s2 in the center’s of Earth direction.

 

Describe PISO format

 

I wonder if that accuracy of 3 decimal places for contact angle? i.e. 118.313?

Fig. 10, please define before CA

 

Line 307, please check equation for beta

 

Figure 15…describe what are the blue circles and the red line. Add fitting correlation coefficient? R

 

Reference

12. YARIN A L. Drop impact dynamics: Splashing, spreading, receding, bouncing.... Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 2006, 38, 159-192.

Please compleate title.

Reference 24, please provide a translation.

check the text in general and the abstract start in particular

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript, and here are the comments:-

English needs to improve; there are some sentences and parts of the manuscript that are difficult to understand

Many abbreviations in the manuscript need to be cleared, and add more results in the abstract.

The materials and methods are difficult to follow in many cases. Extensive revisions are required. The authors should read the manuscript carefully and provide more details in any analysis. In addition, provide the proper reference.

Provide the origin and model of all devices.

Section: 2.2. Visualization test scheme of droplet impact on wheat leaves: Needs critical revision; check and rewrite

To improve the quality of the paper, update the reference list by adding 2022 and 2023 references, especially in the discussion section.

Enhance the resolution of Figure 12

The conclusion shouldn’t contain results, check and rewrite this part.

The references section needs critical revision. The majority of the journal names are NOT capitalized as below. References that contain many authors must be shortened according to the journal format; See references 24; please correct them.

Please follow the authors' instructions in writing the reference in the list. For references about textbooks, please add the page numbers of the textbook. Also, please add the city of the publisher.

English needs to improve; there are some sentences and parts of the manuscript that are difficult to understand

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The phenomenon studied in this article is of great practical importance. Until recently, the mechanics of the process has not been fully studied. The topic of the article is relevant.

Two main disadvantages.

1. Mixing parts of the study. The manuscript must be legible. The “Results and Discussion” section is a sign of the research being incomplete. The authors need to transfer part of the proposals to the “Material and Methods”, and divide the “Results” section into subsections. All comparisons and generalizations should be moved to a separate "Discussion" section (which should also be divided into subsections). In a good study, the structure should be clear and understandable. In the process of restructuring the manuscript, the authors will see the need for a more complete description of the hypotheses in the Introduction section. Each of the hypotheses will correspond to any subsection of the "Results". It is not necessary that each of the hypotheses be confirmed in the study. A good article should contain unexpected discoveries that refute the a priori assumptions of the authors. Make the article interesting.

2. Authors should explain to the reader in detail what factors may influence the results of the study (it is necessary to limit the applicability of the results) in the final subsection "Discussions". Under the conditions of field application of pesticides, there will be at least 10 such factors (temperature, relative air humidity, damage to the leaf blade by fungi, the amount of dust, its composition, the effect of plant pollen and spores of microorganisms, the physiological state of the plant - leaf turgor, adjuvants in the composition of the sprayed mixture, visual pressure of the sprayed mixture and many other parameters). It is desirable to compile a table in which to list these factors and provide references to the literature in which they are studied.

 

Minor disadvantages:

1) the abstract is incomplete; it is necessary to add to it a conclusion understandable for practical researchers;

2) line 30-40: it is necessary to assess the state in a global context, and not just for one country;

3) careless attitude to spaces on lines 144, 145, 149, 166, 212 and others;

4) line 215: you need to write: Name of the characteristic (symbol in brackets) comma unit of measure; the same applies to many drawings;

5) line 226: few people are interested in the average value, on each of the columns you need to indicate the standard deviation, and write letters above the columns - the results of a statistically correct comparison of samples, adjusted for multiple comparison of samples (for example, Tukey's test);

6) line 239 and others: it is not recommended to make a link to a table or figure in the form of a separate sentence that does not carry any other information;

7) line 240: each statement must be confirmed by correct statistical processing;

8) line 247: it is better to arrange the presented data in the form of a scatter plot; the trend line must be signed by the regression equation and the coefficient of determination R2;

9) line 249: this is probably not the right image; this is a photograph, not a diagram;

10) line 270, 281, 299: everywhere in the article and in the figures, a space must be placed between the figure and the unit of measurement;

11) line 270: if the authors want to show some phenomenon to the reader, then in this picture the readers will not understand anything; the figure requires a much more detailed title;

12) line 315: the trend line must be signed by the regression equation and the coefficient of determination R2;

13) the authors should dwell in more detail on the issue of the influence of surfactants on the phenomenon under study; adding a literature review of this issue is mandatory as part of the "Discussion" section.

The first two words from the title of the article should be deleted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

just add the description of the acronym PISO:

PISO algorithm (Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of Operators)

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have carefully processed all comments. The quality of the manuscript has increased significantly. I have no further comments.

 Minor editing of English language required.