Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Author has effectivelly changed the paper according to what I have suggested as reviewer.  

Author Response

In situ IoT Development and Application for Continuous Water Monitoring in Lentic Ecosystem in South of Brazil

 

Manuscript ID: Water- 2424102

Point-by-point response – letter.

 

Dear Editor,

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers by the excellent and detailed revision performed, of course we understood that all the comments, suggestions and solicitations coming from the reviewers will substantially improve the submitted manuscript to reach the high-level research that any manuscript must have in order to be considered for publication in the Water Journal. As follows we pointed out each point raised by reviewers giving our point of view with the related answer.

 

Comments from reviewer #1.

(..)

Author has effectivelly changed  the paper  according  to what I have suggested as reviewer

Reply from Authors: We greatly appreciate the contribution of the reviewer. We praise your observations and conclude that we enriched the work after the changes and suggestions well observed by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The text requires a slight linguistic correction.

Author Response

In situ IoT Development and Application for Continuous Water Monitoring in Lentic Ecosystem in South of Brazil

 

Manuscript ID: Water- 2424102

Point-by-point response – letter.

 

Dear Editor,

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers by the excellent and detailed revision performed, of course we understood that all the comments, suggestions and solicitations coming from the reviewers will substantially improve the submitted manuscript to reach the high-level research that any manuscript must have in order to be considered for publication in the Water Journal. As follows we pointed out each point raised by reviewers giving our point of view with the related answer.

 

Comments from reviewer #2.

(..)

The text requires a slight linguistic correction

 

Thank you for your thorough approach and responding to my comments. Thanks to the introduced corrections and additions, the article has become more understandable and readable. It also acquired the characteristics of a scientific publication. I don't have any more comments at the moment. Please note only the notation of units in the SI system and minor punctuation errors.

Good luck in your further research work

 

Reply from Authors: We greatly appreciate the contribution of the reviewer. We praise your observations and conclude that we enriched the work after the changes and suggestions well observed by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The author has made serious revisions to the manuscript, and the figures in the manuscript have been redrawn according to the requirements, resulting in a significant improvement in the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, I have no objections and agree to accept.

Author Response

In situ IoT Development and Application for Continuous Water Monitoring in Lentic Ecosystem in South of Brazil

 

Manuscript ID: Water- 2424102

Point-by-point response – letter.

 

Dear Editor,

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers by the excellent and detailed revision performed, of course we understood that all the comments, suggestions and solicitations coming from the reviewers will substantially improve the submitted manuscript to reach the high-level research that any manuscript must have in order to be considered for publication in the Water Journal. As follows we pointed out each point raised by reviewers giving our point of view with the related answer.

 

Comments from reviewer #3.

(..)

The author has made serious revisions to the manuscript, and the figures in the manuscript have been redrawn according to the requirements, resulting in a significant improvement in the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, I have no objections and agree to accept

 

Reply from Authors: We greatly appreciate the contribution of the reviewer. We praise your observations and conclude that we enriched the work after the changes and suggestions well observed by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper presents the ability of an IoT concept for the continous monitoring of water in a lentic ecosystem located in the south of Brazil. 

 

In chapter 1, there are several references related to some observations, such as [1,19,20,26-28]. Please explain their operating costs and compare them based on the proposed solution.

 

The research studied period was July 17th to October 4th 2020, so during the COVID-19 pandemic. What happened afterwards? Which is the current situation on situ?

 

The conclusions section must be enriched. Observations must be drawn based on the performed research.

The paper presents the ability of an IoT concept for the continous monitoring of water in a lentic ecosystem located in the south of Brazil. 

 

In chapter 1, there are several references related to some observations, such as [1,19,20,26-28]. Please explain their operating costs and compare them based on the proposed solution.

 

The research studied period was July 17th to October 4th 2020, so during the COVID-19 pandemic. What happened afterwards? Which is the current situation on situ?

 

The conclusions section must be enriched. Observations must be drawn based on the performed research.

Author Response

In situ IoT Development and Application for Continuous Water Monitoring in Lentic Ecosystem in South of Brazil

 

Manuscript ID: Water- 2424102

Point-by-point response – letter.

 

Dear Editor,

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers by the excellent and detailed revision performed, of course we understood that all the comments, suggestions and solicitations coming from the reviewers will substantially improve the submitted manuscript to reach the high-level research that any manuscript must have in order to be considered for publication in the Water Journal. As follows we pointed out each point raised by reviewers giving our point of view with the related answer.

Comments from reviewer #4.

1. In chapter 1, there are several references related to some observations, such as [1,19,20,26,28]. Please explain their operating costs and compare them based on the proposed solution.

Reply from Authors: We greatly appreciate the note made by the reviewer, and promptly qualify the operating cost, demonstrating the great advantage of monitoring water with current technology, involving multi-sensors, data in the clouds, and IoT..

 

2. The research studied period was July 17th to October 4th, 2020, so during the COVID-19 pandemic. What happened afterwards? Which is the current stuation on situ?

Reply from Authors: Thanks for the comment. As well noted by the reviewer, the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic period. However, the logistics of the research remained the same, as the city hall permitted access to the park even in times of social isolation. During this period, the park's tourist activities were suspended, and only employees, environmental managers, and researchers could enter the park's interior. After the research period was carried out, we filed a request with the agency responsible for the environment, belonging to the city hall, to implant the project in the urban lake permanently..

 

 

3. The conclusions section must be enriched. Observations must be drawn based on the performed research

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. . We made the change, adding more observations and information.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

remarks:

 

1- Add a shore paragraph, at the end of the introduction, that describe the how the rest of the paper is organized (example: The rest of this paper is organized as following, In the section 2, .... . In the section 3, ....)

2- we recommend to add a section -Literature Review as section 2, where you discuss related works

3- Please change "(Figure 1- ç)." by "(Figure 1-c)." in line 92

4- use more recent  references(2020-2021-2022-2023) instead of old ones

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The application of Internet of Things (IoT) to water environment monitoring has already been applied, so there is a lack of research work and innovative content for this manuscript.

2. Some sentences are too colloquial, and it is recommended to improve them.

3. In section 3.3, all data figures are presented in the form of screenshots, and it is not possible to clearly see the abscissa and ordinate information in the figure. All data figures need to be redrawn using application software based on the data information to more clearly show the changes in temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, oxide reduction potential with time.

4. How to achieve simultaneous measurement, transmission, and acquisition of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, oxide reduction potential and other parameter data through different sensors needs to be described in detail.