Design and Performance Evaluation of a Multi-Tuber Peeling Machine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Author propose a tuber peeling machine, with a capacity of 10 kg/min, was designed, fabricated and 13 tested for cocoyam, sweet potato, yam and cassava tubers.
Comments. 1. Introduction The third paragraph of Introduction is very long, and needs to be reduced or separated into smaller paragraphs. However, as can be note this paragraph is a overview of related works. In this sense, is better create a new chapter 2. Related Works, where these works are described. In the final of this new chapter includes a comparison table with a comparative of related works and the proposed in this manuscript. This new table could help to show the main contribution of this manuscript. The design of a general purpose peeling machine can benefit people, but a machine for this purpose can present problems in particular in calibrating equipment and also in wasting tuberculosis. Make clear in the work objectives these important questions. That is my main concern issue. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Material The list of material could be better presented in a table. 2.2. Proprieties Before indicate the properties, make a introduction of this section. Indicate why these properties is important, including references in order to support the use of them. I suggest no use i, ii, iii and iv. Could be better as a text. 2.3. Design Items i to vi could be better as a table two?? this concern is a suggestion. Equations seem like a print scream figures or pictures. If used work text editor, use the command Insert > Equation. Not use figures or similar. The manuscript has many variables of equations. At begin or final of manuscript includes a table with abbreviations of all variables, meaning and SI unit. What is the source reference of equation 2? What is the "h" variable? Where "r" variable is used at eq. 2? Explain better " volume of tuber = volume of cylinder ". Line 157 of page 4. Variable "l" is the same "L" of eq. 2? The value 0.001274 is obtained of eq. 2? Line 163 of page 4. n variable is a estimation or need to be user? Line 177 of page 5. x variable is not used in eq. 3, only eq. 5. In this case no need be indicate in this line. Eq. 4 and 5 is confused. The variables must have support at figure 1. In this case, at figure 1, where is the r1 and r2? Line 190 of page 6. The variable "V" is equal of "V" of equation 2? In general is suggest to provide a extensive declaration of equations and description of variables. Other issue, is the values calculate with this equations. Eq. 8, "X" seems a variable, not a multiplication symbol. The same problem is "Tv", it is not clear if "v" is a single variable or not. Eq. 9, it seems that "mar" is a single variable, not "m" , "a" and "r". Variable "D" of eq. 10 is different of "D" of eq. 2. In this case, use different variable (i.e., Dx and Dy). Line 298. Fix 90o. Figures 3 and 4 are not explained in the text. What is the importance of these figures?? For better comparative is better present the costs in US $ dollar. Also, this table is long than limit of page. Figure 6 has poor quality. Improve and adjust the size. Not use " Figure 5 to Figure 7, ", try to explain the figures separately. Design of machine presented in Figure 8 is different of design of Figures 5, 6 and 7. Why?? 3.3 Effect of shaft speed on the peeling efficiency Again, the paragraph is much long. Provide a comparative with a table. Based in results, what was the wast estimation? Also, it sound that this machine is not appropriate for Cassava. In this case, this machine could not used as a general peeling machine.Author Response
Comment 1: Introduction The third paragraph of Introduction is very long, and needs to be reduced or separated into smaller paragraphs. However, as can be note this paragraph is a overview of related works. In this sense, is better create a new chapter 2. Related Works, where these works are described. In the final of this new chapter includes a comparison table with a comparative of related works and the proposed in this manuscript. This new table could help to show the main contribution of this manuscript.
Response 1: This concern has been addressed according the suggestion sited in the reviewer comment 1. A new chapter 1.1 Related work, contribution and limitation was created in the revised manuscript. Here all related works were described. Also, the main contribution of the work was highlighted. Please see revised manuscript.
Comment 2:
The design of a general purpose peeling machine can benefit people, but a machine for this purpose can present problems in particular in calibrating equipment and also in wasting tuberculosis. Make clear in the work objectives these important questions. That is my main concern issue.
Response 2: This concern has been addressed as follows:
"The common problems associated with the popular designs are the difficulty of equipment caliberation, a high tuber flesh loss and low machine efficiency. Also, most of the designs of the peeling machines are crop specific [10-[12]. However, the design of a general-purpose peeling machine has not been reported hitherto. This new machine is aimed at addressing the problem of equipment caliberation and the tuber flesh loss. There is therefore the need to design a machine which can peel different kind of tuber crops irrespective of their sizes and shapes."
Comment 3:
2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Material The list of material could be better presented in a table. 2.2. Proprieties Before indicate the properties, make a introduction of this section. Indicate why these properties is important, including references in order to support the use of them. I suggest no use i, ii, iii and iv. Could be better as a text. 2.3. Design Items i to vi could be better as a table two?? this concern is a suggestion. Equations seem like a print scream figures or pictures. If used work text editor, use the command Insert > Equation. Not use figures or similar.
Response 3: All the concerns highlighted in the comment 3 have been addressed. List of materials are now presented in Table 2. The importance of studying some engineering properties prior to the machine design has been indicated in the text. All equations have been rewritten using Microsoft word Equation Editor.
Comment 4:
The manuscript has many variables of equations. At begin or final of manuscript includes a table with abbreviations of all variables, meaning and SI unit.
Response 4: This concern has been effected.
Comment 5:
What is the source reference of equation 2? What is the "h" variable? Where "r" variable is used at eq. 2? Explain better " volume of tuber = volume of cylinder ". Line 157 of page 4. Variable "l" is the same "L" of eq. 2? The value 0.001274 is obtained of eq. 2? Line 163 of page 4. n variable is a estimation or need to be user? Line 177 of page 5. x variable is not used in eq. 3, only eq. 5. In this case no need be indicate in this line. Eq. 4 and 5 is confused. The variables must have support at figure 1. In this case, at figure 1, where is the r1 and r2? Line 190 of page 6. The variable "V" is equal of "V" of equation 2? In general is suggest to provide a extensive declaration of equations and description of variables. Other issue, is the values calculate with this equations. Eq. 8, "X" seems a variable, not a multiplication symbol. The same problem is "Tv", it is not clear if "v" is a single variable or not. Eq. 9, it seems that "mar" is a single variable, not "m" , "a" and "r". Variable "D" of eq. 10 is different of "D" of eq. 2. In this case, use different variable (i.e., Dx and Dy). Line 298. Fix 90o.
Response 5: All equation variables highlighted in Comment 5 have been clearly defined and described in the revised manuscript.
Comment 6:
Figures 3 and 4 are not explained in the text. What is the importance of these figures??
Response 6: All figures are now explained in the text. Please see revised manuscript.
Comment 7:
For better comparative is better present the costs in US $ dollar. Also, this table is long than limit of page.
Response 7: The cost in Bill of engineering measurement and evaluation has been presented in US $ dollar as suggested.
Comment 8:
Figure 6 has poor quality. Improve and adjust the size. Not use " Figure 5 to Figure 7, ", try to explain the figures separately. Design of machine presented in Figure 8 is different of design of Figures 5, 6 and 7. Why??
Response 8: The figures describing the machine have been re-drawn and clearly and correctly presented in the revised manuscript.
Comment 9"
3.3 Effect of shaft speed on the peeling efficiency Again, the paragraph is much long. Provide a comparative with a table.
Response 9: The long paragraph has been shorten, and variables have compared and described in Table instead of figures as suggested.
Comment 10:
Based in results, what was the wast estimation? Also, it sound that this machine is not appropriate for Cassava. In this case, this machine could not used as a general peeling machine.
Response 10:
The waste estimation has been reported as the amount of tuber flesh loss and percent weight of peels. Please see the revised manuscript.
The essence of this design was for a general purpose tuber peeling machine. This machine is suitable for peeling cassava, cocoyam, yam and sweet potato because the amount of wastes produced is far less than those reported for other designs. please see the discussion of this section in the revised manuscript. Also, see the conclusion section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is focused on the Design and performance evaluation of a multi-tuber peeling machine.
The article, nevertheless, is weak in some parts, which, should be modified and improved. In fact Material and Method section is not well structured, and should be deeply rearranged. It is suggested to star with should be better start with the machine general description and operating principles, and than explain the theoretical concepts and achine component part and bill-of-materials.
- In Results and Discussion section, the authors are invited to explain further their outcomes and better present their statistical analysis, including in graphs.
Author Response
Comment 1:
The article, nevertheless, is weak in some parts, which, should be modified and improved. In fact Material and Method section is not well structured, and should be deeply rearranged. It is suggested to star with should be better start with the machine general description and operating principles, and than explain the theoretical concepts and machine component part and bill-of-materials.
Response 1:
The revised version of the manuscript has been deeply structured according to the suggestions highlighted in comment 1.
Comment 2:
- In Results and Discussion section, the authors are invited to explain further their outcomes and better present their statistical analysis, including in graphs.
Response 2:
As much as we appreciate the concern of this reviewer in comment 2, the authors wish to remind the reviewer that this manuscript is a Technical Note and not an Article that would have required discussion of results statistically.
Reviewer 3 Report
This work does not appear scientific, but seems a Degree work. It is necessary a revision of the work taking into account the scientific and tecnological approach. The calculation are extremely theoric and simple and well known, moreover are not suitable for a real constriction. I suggest to rewrite "materilas and methods" taking into account the prototype you performed which could be of interest; but it is a simple machine and it is of no importance to present all the calculation which level is of no interest because it is wellknown by the readers. I think it is sufficient to present the dimensions expaining that there are calculated by means of simple approach (equations…)
Author Response
Comment 1:
This work does not appear scientific, but seems a Degree work. It is necessary a revision of the work taking into account the scientific and tecnological approach.
Response 1:
The manuscript have been rewritten to address the concern of this reviewer here. The science and technology described has been improved significantly. Hence, This work is scientific.
Comment 2:
The calculation are extremely theoric and simple and well known, moreover are not suitable for a real constriction. I suggest to rewrite "materilas and methods" taking into account the prototype you performed which could be of interest; but it is a simple machine and it is of no importance to present all the calculation which level is of no interest because it is wellknown by the readers. I think it is sufficient to present the dimensions expaining that there are calculated by means of simple approach (equations…)
Response 2:
These suggestions are taken. All calculation steps have been removed. Equations are used only to describe procedures. Final results from each design analysis was summarized as Technical Design Parameters in Table 3. Please see the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments and concerns was replied.
Author Response
Reviewer Comment
All comments and concerns was replied.
Authors' Response
Thank you. We have further improved the technical writing of MS.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved as required.
Congratulation
Author Response
Reviewer Comment
The manuscript has been improved as required.
Congratulation
Authors' Response
Thank you. We have further improved the technical writing of the MS as requested by the Editor.
Reviewer 3 Report
Now the paper coul be accepted.
Author Response
Reviewer Comment:
Now the paper could be accepted.
Authors' Response:
Thank you. We have further improved the technical writing of the MS as requested by the Editor.
