Development of test bench to determine the distribution of granular fertilizers in planting rows using spiral roller, two spiral rollers and fluted roller.

The success of the application of granular fertilizers (GFs) in planting rows depends on the uniformity and performance of product dispensing systems, which are influenced by external factors. The objective of this study was to determine the outflow rates of two GF formulations (GF1 04-14-08 and GF2 04-30-10) using three types of fertilizer spreader-with one spiral roller (A), two spiral rollers (B), or a fluted roller (C)-and three operating speeds (1,11, 1.94, and 2.77 m s-1). The following parameters were determined in GFs: density, angle of repose, water content, and segregation (particle size). In the designed test bench, GFs were transferred from a reservoir to a spreader, and ultimately to a container, where they were weighed, and data were transmitted to the data acquisition system (DAS). A total of 7,560 outflow data points were collected (g s-1) and subjected to descriptive analysis of measures of central tendency, dispersion, asymmetry, and kurtosis, and Shewhart control charts were generated. Particle density and segregation were significantly different between the GFs, whereas the angle of repose and water content were not significantly different. The bench design and the DAS allowed measuring the outflow of GFs in different spreaders and demonstrated that this parameter was influenced by particle segregation. The segregation of GF1 was higher than that of GF2. The outflow variability at the speed of 1.11 m s-1 was lower, and the spreader with a fluted roller had the highest uniformity and was the most suitable for application with variable rates.

Introduction

In recent years, agricultural production in Brazil has increased significantly with the adoption of new technologies. Increased production is primarily attributed to improvements in agricultural technologies and management practices, including the use of direct sowing techniques and genetic improvement sit [1]. In this scenario, the demand for granular fertilizers (GFs) follows the same trend, especially for phosphate fertilizers in low-fertility tropical soils to improve agricultural production sit [2]. For this reason, GFs are applied in planting rows using uniform dispensing mechanisms in simpler production systems. In contrast, variable rate technology allows streamlining fertilizer application and utilization, which is essential for modern precision agriculture sit [3]. The distribution of GFs depends mainly on the quality of dispensing systems, which are affected by external factors sit [4]. sit [5] developed mathematical models to measure application rates of granulated fertilizers at different dosing mechanisms (single helical), as well as speed and longitudinal and transverse slopes. The authors observed rate differences among the evaluated spreaders, with greater deposition variability if under varying inclinations. However, manufacturers do not have enough comparative research when launching products that they claim to have advantages. Therefore, the study of these donors is extremely important for economy and consequently for sustainability, as it is fair in deposition. The effects of external factors were minimized by developing a test bench to measure output (g s-1) of different GFs in planting rows using different spiral fertilizer spreaders (single and double) or fluted roller.

Materials and methods

Development of the test bench

The test bench Fig 1 evaluated the efficiency of three fertilizer spreaders (with one spiral roller, two spiral rollers, or a fluted roller) at three operating speeds (1.11, 1.94, and 2.77 m s-1) using two NPK formulations (GF1 04-14-08 and GF2 04-30-10), totaling 18 treatments. For each treatment, 420 outflow measurements (g s-1) were obtained, corresponding to 7,560 data points.

Fig 1

Design of the test bench: electric drive (A), transmission assembly (B), hinge system (C), reservoirs (D), dispensing mechanisms (E), and data acquisition system (F).

Electric drive via frequency inverter allowed precisely adjusting the speed of the 0.246 kW gear motor and drive the common axis of the dosing mechanism through a gear ratio. Operating speeds were determined based on the application of 300 kg ha -1 GF in the spreader with a spiral roller and 250 kg ha -1 in the spreader with a fluted roller, allowing both types of spreaders to work at the same rotation. Inter-row spacing was 0.50 m, resulting in a load of 15.0 and 12.5 grams of fertilizer per meter, respectively. This equipment has been parameterized to operate in the frequency of 1 to 60 hertz being activated by a linear pot of 5 KΩ, thus allowing to vary the working speed of the three dosers together, according to Table 1 and Fig 2.

Table 1

Flow determination to simulate speeds.

km h-1	m s-1	g s-1	g min-1
4,0	1,11	16,67	1.000
7,0	1,94	29,17	1.750
10,0	2,77	41,67	2.500

Fig 2

Calibration curve as a function of flow rate.

In addition to the electric adjustment of the speeds, the test bench architecture allowed varying the longitudinal and transverse angles of the spreader using threaded bars sized to fit joints with an angle between –30° and +30° in both directions. The reservoirs at the upper end of the bench were connected to three types of spreaders, as follows: A. with one spiral roller and a pitch of 1 inch; B. with two spiral rollers and a pitch of ½ inch, and C. with a fluted roller, which worked with an eight-channel 6.9 cm3-rotor arranged vertically.

Data acquisition system

The distribution of GFs was measured with high precision and accuracy using a data acquisition system (DAS) in Arduino, a low-cost open-source software, at an acquisition frequency of 1 Hertz. This system was connected to three single-point load cell-type scales performing real-time measurements and collected 420 seconds of outflow data. The initial and final 30-second intervals were excluded because they corresponded to the period of flow stabilization, and collection was interrupted before the reservoir contents reached the final third. Thus, the average of the pulses was performed for each scale and, subsequently, a calibration curve was calculated Fig 3. With the equation found, the precision of the bench scale at 0.0011 grams per pulse was identified, that is, it is possible to count a single granule of fertilizer deposited on the scale in real time.

Fig 3

Calibration curve for balance one, two and three.

Characterization of GFs

N-P2O5-K2O GFs were selected according to the products marketed in the region and the concentration of the formulations. Two tons of GFs were divided into two formulations: GF1 04-14-08 and GF2 04-30-10. Immediately after storage in a weather-protected area, GF particle size was determined using the following sieve set following the manufacturer’s recommendations sit [6]: 4.0 mm (ABNT No. 05); 2.0 mm (ABNT No. 10); 1.0 mm (ABNT No. 18); 0.5 mm (ABNT No. 35), and the retained fraction. Particle density was estimated using Dalle Molle equipment, and fluidity was determined by the angle of repose using two kilograms of GF deposited in a rectangular glass vessel at a constant speed. The relative water content (percentage fresh weight) was determined according to the methodology proposed by sit [6] using an analytical balance. Only particle density was significantly different between the fertilizers Table 2. The angles of repose and water content were similar between GF1 and GF2.

Table 2

Density, angle of repose, and water content of granular fertilizers.

Ganular fertilizer (GF)	Density (g cm-3)	Angle of repose (°)	Water content (g g-1)
GF1 04-14-08	0.97	32.55	0.03
GF2 04-30-10	0.95	33.69	0.03

Particle size was significantly different between the formulations Table 3. The 2.0 mm mesh retained the largest amount of GF1 and GF2, followed by the 1.0 mm mesh, whereas particle size was similar using the other meshes.

Table 3

Analysis of variance of the particle size of granular fertilizers.

Granular fertilizer (GF)	Mesh
GF1 04-14-08	19.90
GF2 04-30-10	20.00
Sieve (S)
0.0 mm	0.00
0.5 mm	0.25
1.0 mm	14.87
2.0 mm	81.38
4.0 mm	3.50

Granulometric characteristics were also analyzed Table 4. The 2.0 mm mesh increased the retention of GF1 and GF2 by 72.75% and 90%, respectively.

Table 4

Partial and accumulated amount of granular fertilizer passing through each sieve.

Sieve (S)	GF1 04-14-08		GF2 04-30-10
	Partial (%)	Accumulated (%)	Partial (%)	Accumulated (%)
0.0 mm	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
0.5 mm	0.50	0.50	0.00	0.00
1.0 mm	24.25	24.75	5.50	5.50
2.0 mm	72.75	97.50	90.00	95.50
4.0 mm	2.50	100.00	4.50	100.00

Statistical analysis

A total of 7,560 outflow data points was subjected to descriptive analysis of the measures of central tendency (mean, median, and mode), dispersion (amplitude, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation), asymmetry, and kurtosis. The Jarque-Bera normality test was also performed sit [7]. Data were subjected to statistical process control, generating Shewhart control charts of averages for each spreader and velocity, allowing measuring the outflow rate and variability using lower and upper control limits sit [8]. These limits consider data variability due to uncontrollable circumstances and are calculated using standard deviations.

Results and discussion

Central tendency was different between GF1 and GF2 in the three types of fertilizer spreaders. Spreader Spiral Single presented asymmetry between 0.21 and 0.10 for GF1 and GF2, suggesting that the curve was skewed to the right, given that the median was lower than the mean. Spreader Spiral Double had positive asymmetry for GF1 but no asymmetry for GF2. In spreader Fluted Roller, asymmetry was –0.06 for both GFs, indicating that the curve was skewed to the left. The descriptive statistics Table 5 of dispersion indicated the presence of kurtosis. For GF1 in spreader Spiral Single, a kurtosis of –0.27 indicated the smallest number of outflow data points around the mean, i.e., a platykurtic distribution; however, for GF2, kurtosis presented a leptokurtic distribution, with a high number of data points around the central tendency. Spreader Spiral Double presented a platykurtic distribution for both GFs, in contrast to spreader Fluted Roller for both formulations.

Table 5

Descriptive statistics of the outflow of fertilizers using different fertilizer spreaders at a speed of 1.11 m s-1.

Variable	Spiral Single		Spiral Double		Fluted Roller
	GF1	GF2	GF1	GF2	GF1	GF2
Means	16.52	15.70	18.48	15.31	14.03	13.86
Median	16.43	15.60	18.42	15.30	14.04	13.85
Mode	17.17	14.63	17.99	15.22	15.04	13.48
Standard deviation	1.02	1.03	1.30	1.10	0.99	1.11
Amplitude	5.69	6.43	7.52	6.19	6.46	6.73
CV (%)	5.87	6.66	7.60	6.92	7.17	7.92
Asymmetry	0.21	0.10	0.05	0.00	–0.06	–0.06
Kurtosis	–0.27	0.04	–0.10	–0.25	0.19	0.05
JB	4.46 N	0.74 N	0.36 N	1.08 N	0.83 N	0.32 N

CV, coefficient of variation (%); JB, Jarque-Bera normality test (N, normal distribution; A: non-normal distribution at p ≤ 0.05; AA, non-normal distribution at p ≤ 0.01); GF, granular fertilizer.

Data dispersion was low (CV≤10%). The average outflow values were higher for GF1 in all three types of Spreader, which can be explained by the higher particle density of this formulation. The average outflow values are shown as Shewhart control charts in Fig 4. Spreader Spiral Single at the speed of 1.11 m s-1 did not show any out-of-control events for GF1. There was one out-of-control event for GF2. For spreader Spiral Double, there were no out-of-control events for both formulations. For spreader Fluted Roller, there were out-of-control events for both formulations.

Fig 4

Performance of fertilizer spreaders at a speed of 1.11 m s-1.

The descriptive statistics of outflow data in different spreaders at a speed of 1.94 m s-1 are presented in Table 6. Spreader Spiral Single presented asymmetry between 0.13 for GF1 and 1.41 for GF2, indicating positive asymmetry. In contrast, asymmetry was negative in spreader Spiral Double because the means were lower than the median. Asymmetry was positive in Fluted Roller, i.e., the curve was skewed to the right.

Table 6

Descriptive statistics of outflow data of granular fertilizers using different fertilizer spreaders at a linear speed of 1.94 m s-1.

Variable	Spiral Single		Spiral Double		Fluted Roller
	GF1	GF2	GF1	GF2	GF1	GF2
Means	29.70	28.08	32.37	26.15	24.60	24.18
Median	29.48	27.56	32.45	26.20	24.51	24.08
Mode	29.76	27.96	31.08	24.18	24.13	23.74
Standard deviation	2.08	1.89	1.89	1.52	1.44	1.37
Amplitude	10.55	17.09	14.32	10.81	9.79	8.33
CV (%)	6.23	7.29	7.46	6.40	5.79	5.67
Asymmetry	0.13	1.41	-0.10	-0.10	0.23	0.40
Kurtosis	-0.40	5.48	-0.16	-0.30	0.73	0.42
JB	3.97 N	664.64 N	1.11 N	2.31 N	12.90 N	14.46 N

CV, coefficient of variation (%); JB, Jarque-Bera normality test (N, normal distribution; A: non-normal distribution at p ≤ 0.05; AA, non-normal distribution at p ≤ 0.01); GF, granular fertilizer.

The descriptive statistics of dispersion evidenced the presence of kurtosis. For GF1 in Spiral Single, kurtosis of –0.40 indicated a platykurtic distribution, in contrast to GF2, whose data distribution was close to the mean (leptokurtic). Spiral Double presented a platykurtic distribution for both formulations. In Fluted Roller, the curve had a strong leptokurtic distribution for both formulations. Data dispersion was low (low CV values) between the spreaders and fertilizer formulations at a speed of 1.94 m s-1. The average outflow values are shown as Shewhart control charts in Fig 5.

Fig 5

Performance of fertilizer spreaders at a speed of 1.94 m s-1.

There were systematic deviations in the outflow of GF2 in spreader Spiral Single at 1.94 m s-1 but no systematic deviations in the outflow of GF1. There were systematic deviations in the outflow of both formulations in spreaders Spiral Double and Fluted Roller at 1.94 m s-1. The outflow rates between different spreaders and fertilizer formulations at a speed of 2.77 m s-1 are presented in Table 7. Asymmetry was positive in spreaders Spiral Single and Fluted Roller for both GF1 and GF2, i.e., the mean was higher than the median, and the curve was skewed to the right. In contrast, asymmetry was negative in Spiral Double for both formulations, i.e., the median was higher than the mean.

Table 7

Descriptive statistics for outflow data of granular fertilizers using different fertilizer spreaders at a speed of 2.77 m s-1.

Variable	Spiral Single		Spiral Double		Fluted Roller
	GF1	GF2	GF1	GF2	GF1	GF2
Means	43.99	39.15	47.50	36.71	35.04	32.63
Median	43.75	38.58	47.64	36.86	34.85	32.55
Mode	42.74	38.54	48.80	37.04	34.92	31.96
Standard deviation	2.62	2.50	3.62	1.91	1.86	1.56
Amplitude	18.28	19.42	19.27	16.50	12.28	10.79
CV (%)	6.35	6.49	7.18	6.67	5.48	5.06
Asymmetry	0.09	0.91	0.02	-0.25	0.33	0.02
Kurtosis	-0.01	2.47	-0.38	0.37	0.40	0.74
JB	0.59 N	164.95 N	2.56 N	6.94 N	10.42 N	9.50 N

CV, coefficient of variation (%); JB, Jarque-Bera normality test (N, normal distribution; A: non-normal distribution at p ≤ 0.05; AA, non-normal distribution at p ≤ 0.01); GF, granular fertilizer.

GF1 in spreader Spiral Single presented kurtosis of –0.01, confirming its platykurtic distribution and intermediate dispersion around the mean. GF2 in Spiral Single presented a leptokurtic distribution, with a value of 2.47. Kurtosis was heterogeneous in spreader Spiral Double, with a platykurtic distribution for GF1 and a leptokurtic distribution for GF2. However, kurtosis was homogeneous in spreader Fluted Roller at a speed of 2.77 m s-1 with a leptokurtic distribution for both formulations. The coefficients of variation, data dispersion, and standard deviation were small. However, the amplitudes of outflow variability were consistent with the higher data dispersion around the mean. It is of note that in both formulations, the averages were higher than the median, except for GF1 and GF2 in Spiral Double. The average outflow values are shown as Shewhart control charts in Fig 6.

Fig 6

Performance of fertilizer spreaders at a speed of 2.77 m s-1.

Spreader Spiral Single at a speed of 2.77 m s-1 presented systematic deviations in the outflow of both formulations. In spreader Spiral Double, there were no systematic deviations for GF1, and dispersions were higher than the upper and lower ranges for GF2. However, some data points extrapolated the established range for both formulations in spreader Fluted Roller. These results suggest that the speed of 1.11 m s-1 presented the smallest systematic deviations, i.e., outflow variability values were lower for the three types of spreaders, flow data variability increased with increasing velocity. Despite the higher uniformity, GF2 presented the highest number of systematic deviations at a speed of 1.94 and 2.77 m s-1. The higher segregation of GF1 led to higher deviations in outflow at a speed of 1.94 m s-1 relative to the speed of 2.77 m s-1. Spiral Double presented the highest deviations in the outflow of GF1 at 1.94 m s-1 and GF2 at 2.77 m s-1. Spiral Single presented the highest deviations in the outflow of FG2 at 1.94 m s-1 and both GF1 and GF2 at 2.77 m s-1. However, spreader Fluted Roller had the best dispersion around the mean compared to Spiral Single and Spiral Double for all parameters.

Conclusion

The bench and DAS allowed measuring the outflow of GFs in different spreaders. The segregation of granular fertilizers was different, and particle size variability was higher for GF1 and lower for FG2, affecting product outflow in the spreaders. The efficiency in the distribution of both formulations was higher at a speed of 1.11 m s-1 and lower at 1.94 m s-1. The fertilizer spreader with a fluted roller presented the highest uniformity in outflow rates at the evaluated speeds.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

13 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-09797

Development of a low-cost test bench to determine the distribution of granular fertilizers in planting rows using spiral roller, two spiral rollers and fluted roller

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zimmermann,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The authors need to follow the comments from both reviewers especially addressed the concerns raised by the 2nd reviewer. The title needs to be more focused with inclusion of important key words to understand the research study. Should add relevant information in the introduction to justify why the research was conducted in relation to the comparative efficiency of the conventional and new technologies. Also, focus on economics and other concerns.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rafiq Islam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The title of the article does not correspond to the content. The article lacks data on the cost of the test bench and on the cost of the study.

In the presented figures 4a-4f and 5a-5f, it is necessary to expand the distribution of data along the Y-axis. This is necessary for greater clarity of the figures.

In the conclusions and annotations, it is necessary to indicate the cost of the test bench and how cheap it is to work in comparison with analogs.

Reviewer #2: The study sought to develop a low-cost test bench to determine the distribution of granular fertilizers in planting rows using spiral roller, two spiral rollers and fluted roller. The introductory section of the manuscript appears disjointed and incoherent. The aim of the study is conspicuously not made clear in the write-up.

The authors failed to compare the output flow rates of the developed test bench with already existing spreaders. What was the basis for comparison relative to the efficiency of this newly developed technology with already existing technologies?

The authors again failed to support their findings with what has been done elsewhere. The manuscript actually lacks the required literature review.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

28 Sep 2020

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The title of the article does not correspond to the content. The article lacks data on the cost of the test bench and on the cost of the study.

In the presented figures 4a-4f and 5a-5f, it is necessary to expand the distribution of data along the Y-axis. This is necessary for greater clarity of the figures.

In the conclusions and annotations, it is necessary to indicate the cost of the test bench and how cheap it is to work in comparison with analogs.

A: The title of the manuscript was changed, removing the term low cost, and the economic direction of the development of the structure and its quotations. A new paragraph was added in the introduction, referring to the justification and importance of the work. The expansion of the data distribution of the commented figures, could not be attended for statistical and software reasons. As for the cost results in the conclusion, it will no longer be necessary due to the change in the title of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The study sought to develop a low-cost test bench to determine the distribution of granular fertilizers in planting rows using spiral roller, two spiral rollers and fluted roller. The introductory section of the manuscript appears disjointed and incoherent. The aim of the study is conspicuously not made clear in the write-up. The authors failed to compare the output flow rates of the developed test bench with already existing spreaders. What was the basis for comparison relative to the efficiency of this newly developed technology with already existing technologies? The authors again failed to support their findings with what has been done elsewhere. The manuscript actually lacks the required literature review.

A: The title of the manuscript was changed, removing the term low cost, and the economic direction of the development of the structure and its quotations. A new paragraph was added in the introduction, referring to the justification and importance of the work. The output flow rates were addressed before the descriptive statistics of the data and were not compared to other literature because there were no methods of evaluating the spreaders yet, so it was not possible to add new changes. This test bench was developed for this proposal to evaluate the regularity of spreader distribution, and the existing works do not meet the technical conditions for comparison.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

26 Nov 2020

Development of test bench to determine the distribution of granular fertilizers in planting rows using spiral roller, two spiral rollers and fluted roller

PONE-D-20-09797R1

Dear Dr. Zimmermann,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Mehdi Rashidi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised version could be accepted in the present form.

Editor

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: General comments

This manuscript is an improved version of what was earlier on submitted. The comments raised by the reviewers in the previous review have been adequately addressed.

The development of test bench to determine the distribution of granular fertilizers will undoubtedly serve as a prototype that will improve the application and distribution of granular-based fertilizers for that will increase fertilizer use efficiency for enhanced ecosystem functions and services.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Submitted filename: General comments_PONE-D-20-09797R1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-09797R1

Development of test bench to determine the distribution of granular fertilizers in planting rows using spiral roller, two spiral rollers and fluted roller

Dear Dr. Zimmermann:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Mohammad Mehdi Rashidi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE