Calibration of Physical Characteristic Parameters of Granular Fungal Fertilizer Based on Discrete Element Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors prepared an interesting article in which they described the parameters of the product presented in the article. The authors described the subject in a limited way. I suggest that a related topic should be compared. For example, this article also describes the parameters: Roman, K.; Roman, M.; Szadkowska, D.; Szadkowski, J.; Grzegorzewska, E. Evaluation of Physical and Chemical Parameters According to Energetic Willow (Salix viminalis L.) Cultivation. Energies 2021, 14, 2968. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102968 Please note how well described this material is in the methodology, this manuscript lacked that. It should even be cited because statistics need to be introduced in the manuscript. The cited article would be a starting point.
There is no in-depth statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was not sufficiently discussed. The entire manuscript looks like an excerpt from a report from some major work. Without statistics and research, the article does not contribute to any knowledge development. An expansion of literature, conclusions, and discussions is required.
It would be also good to describe the economic impact of the cultivation used and compare how much the commonly used cultivation (an example estimated by the used fertilizers) would cost to that proposed by the authors' cultivation. This is important because the cost of implementing the cultivation is the basis for its application.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The current manuscript on “Calibration of Discrete Element Physical Characteristic Parameters of Granular Fungal Fertilizer Based On EDEM” by Yu et al. deals with the mathematical calibration of physical characteristics of a novel fungal fertilizer. After a careful review, I found this manuscript interesting and suitable for publication in the Processes journal. The English of the paper is fine and the presentation by the authors is commendable. However, I have some suggestions which should be taken into account by the authors as minor revisions. My specific comments are:
1. Define the EDEM abbreviation in the title or rephrase it.
2. Avoid repetition of keywords that are already selected in the title.
3. Provide the sources of material collection.
4. References are missing for the methods used in this study.
5. There are two methods of writing units either use kg/m3 or kg·m-3. Be consistence in this regard for other units too.
6. Improve the quality of Figure 8.
7. Eliminate the typo errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was corrected properly according to the assigned comments. I have no more comments.
