Assessment of Spray Drift with Various Adjuvants in a Wind Tunnel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Taking into account that herbicide gliphosate has limited use on agriculture crops, you can expand the list of the tested herbicides. You can also chack how the process of reducing drift affects the effectiviness of herbicides.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
To whom it may concern
All suggestions were carried out. The study will be better with your suggestions and contribution. If any other suggestions, please inform us.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Pesticides are still intensively used in agriculture to protect crops and ensure the quality of products. One of the public concerns in this regard is the environmental impact of pesticides, mainly due to spray drift associated with the pesticide application. Use of adjuvants to reduce the spray drift and emission of pesticides to the environment could be an interesting solution in environmentally friendly spray application technique. Therefore subject of the study is very important for developing low drift and more precise methods of spray application in field crops. The paper presents interesting experimental data on a laboratory performance of 7 different anti-drift adjuvants. Overall, the article is written correctly, but requires a lot of minor corrections.
This manuscript needs to be corrected for the faults listed below.
1. The suggested paper title: “Assessment of spray drift with various adjuvants in a wind tunnel.”
2. The words in the title should not be repeated in the keywords.
3. The objectives of the study should be included in abstract.
4. It is needed to proofread the English language by a native speaker.
5. Figures and tables should be self-explanatory without the need to use the text of the article
6. A detailed description of the performed statistical analyzes should be included.
7. Drawing descriptions are not legible and require correction.
8. The scale of the Y (concentrations) axis should be the same to facilitate the comparison of the obtained results (Fig. 1; 2; 3; 4; 5).
9. Data on the place of production (town, country) of atomizers, adjuvants and fluorometer should be completed.
10. The conclusions are necessary.
Author Response
To whom it may concern
All suggestions were carried out. The study will be better with your suggestions and contribution. If any other suggestions, please inform us.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript has serious technical writing problem.
Title: Change to “in reducing spray drift”. Not on reducing drift.
Line 37: 45% of the world supply of what?
Line 43: inadequate pest management? result in reduced pest control.
Line 54: electrostatic forces? Or electrostatically charged spray applications.
Line 55-57: Modify these sentences.
Table 1: You have listed the adjuvants and the active ingredient rates used in the study. These are not the properties.
All Figures are not legible. Use Bold fonts. The authors should redo all the Figures.
Table 2: concentration. Check spelling.
Line 232-236: The authors are describing the differences in Surface Tension and Viscosity between the adjuvants. But no statistics is provided. Provide ANOVA data with mean separation statistics.
Table 3 and Table 4: In Table 3, the title did not say the droplet data were from XR nozzle. Table 4 indicates significant interaction between adjuvants and DV50 droplets. You have Adjuvants, DV50 and Adjuvants x DV50 as sources of variations in the ANOVA Model. These ANOVA Statistics should be provided in the manuscript.
Table 4: Say something like, “Effect of adjuvants on DV50, µm droplets” in the title.
Line 260: Section 3.3. The title is awkwardly written. How about: “The effect of adjuvants in reducing the potential for spray drift”?
Table 5 and 6: ANOVA data for Pressure, Wind Speed and Pressure x Wind Speed should be provided for spray pattern displacement.
I would like to see a detailed descriptions of the statistical model used in the study inserted before the Results Section.
Author Response
To whom it may concern
All suggestions were carried out. The study will be better with your suggestions and contribution. If any other suggestions, please inform us.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper requires serious editing and improvement in sentence construction.
Table 2: Means followed by the same lower-case letter are not significantly different.
Table 4: Delete ns=not significant. You don’t have any ns source of variation in ANOVA.
Lines: 280-281. Interaction was significant.
Table 5: Delete ns.
You need to say whether row or column instead of same line.
Line 25: Test results showed that
Line 26: Remove adjuvants tested.
Line 28: Remove spraying.
Line 32: Remove values
Author Response
To whom it may concern
All suggestions were carried out. The study will be better with your suggestions and contribution. If any other suggestions, please inform us.
Best Regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
