Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Objectives are clearly evident. I found them relevant.

Methods are well described. The description is sufficient, that experienced reader can repeat the experiment. The equipment used, and processing of the data as well as the statistical analysis, is well described.

Would it be nice to know the type of chainsaws used

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Notes in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The paper is interested and important beacuse wood dust is carcinogenic to humans.

Overall, the manuscript is very well written, but I have some suggestions to improve the manuscript. 

In Fig 2. you describing saw chain cutters in following order: A – semi chisel, B – full chisel, C – chamfer chisel. Please, follow the same order in other figures (fig. 5 and fig. 6.). It is hard to follow and comparing results when the order is not the same all the time.

In chapter 2.2 you describing type of chains that you used in research. Please write main data about the chains, like step of the used chains (1/4", 3/8" or .325"), number of cutters and driving articles. Also you did not mentioned maximum chain speed of the used battery chaisaw and at what speed do you made a measurements (at full speed I suppose).

Kind regards,

Reviewer

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx