Radiation Protection of a 3D Computer Tomography Scanning Workplace for Logs—A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the manuscript is clearly and well written it is more like a technical report not a scientific paper. I would expect at least description of possible solution how to minimaise the radiation (and not in the conclusion section only).

The Directive related to dose limits should be mentioned – the limit of 1 mSv is typical for the population, for the workers it is usually higher! If the local law is not different it means that discussion is incorrect.

Line 71-73 – it is not clear if Authors mean personnel or patients. Patients sometimes receive relatively high doses, but this is still a benefit, to diagnose the disease.

Quality of measurements is not discussed.

no comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments of Reviewer 1 and our responses are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments are reported in the attached file.

Please, pay attention and consider all the main comments and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required. Make uniform the words used in the text.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments of Reviewer 2 and our responses are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript improved and I am satisfied with corrections. However, I still find it like a technical report not a scientific paper. Therefore, the article should be preceded by an appropriate annotation.

Author Response

Thank you forReviewer 1 comments and our responses are attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf