Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The article titled “Development of a platform for monitoring the levels of dispersed oxygen of rivers components of a water supply micro basin using programmable microcontrollers” represents the water monitoring, starting with a straightforward approach to the importance of the water and the IoT concept. Although the study objective is mentioned, several points should be considered:

1- Most of the figures are given as data per time! The authors need to show the correlation between different parameters.

2- What about the detection of other water quality parameters (TDS, N, COD, etc.)?

3- How to transfer the collected data remotely and on real-time?

4- What are the expected improvement methods to the props?

5- Also, what are the real applications of using these props?

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Development of a platform for monitoring the levels of dispersed oxygen of rivers components of a water supply micro basin using programmable microcontrollers

 

Manuscript ID: Water- 2440085 

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.

 

1. Most the figures are given as data per time! The authors need to show the correlation between different parameters

Reply from Authors: We greatly appreciate the reviewer's comment. We fully agree with the approach to reporting correlations between different parameters. However, we want the reviewer to understand that the purpose of this work is not to analyze the time series data, although we did a somewhat superficial analysis of the results obtained and delivered this work. In this work, we focus on validating the construction of a monitoring platform in three data collection points and a central one to manage data sending to the cloud. However, the Water Quality Index informs the most significant weight for the parameter, dissolved oxygen, which is also considered one of the most important for the water quality analysis. Therefore, this work used only the dissolved oxygen and water temperature sensors. As a suggestion for future work, we include for a new phase to add new sensors, which will read TDS, ORP, EC, Salinity, and pH.

 

2. What about the detection of the other water quality parameters (TDS, N, COD, etc)?

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. As we mentioned in question 1, we want to reinforce that this work aims to validate a platform installed in a place of difficult access, which collects data 24/7. Furthermore, new sensors are part of a new study and article where we will demonstrate the readings obtained in a more extensive time series and containing more water parameters. Therefore, in the conclusions of future works, we include this information.

 

3. How to transfer the collected data remotely and on real-time?

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation. In section 2.2, we demonstrate the functioning of the Sensor Node, which is the collection point (P1-P2-P3), and in section 2.3, the central Node, which we detail the operation of sending data to the cloud. Finally, in section 2.4, we inform the Thingspeak data access platform.

4. What are the expected improvement methods to the props?
5. Also, what are the real applications of using these props?

Reply from Authors: We want to thank the notes made in questions 4 and 5. The application of this research is to develop and validate a platform for real-time monitoring of the waters of a river responsible for the urban supply of important cities in the southern region of Brazil. When implementing this system, we went through several difficulties because many access points were difficult to install and attenuated cell phone signal, in addition to going through some complications related to the membranes of the dissolved oxygen probes. Nevertheless, we want to bring this type of experience to the researchers, completing the main objectives of this work and demonstrating weaknesses and possible improvements in other parts.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The article discusses how to design and implement multiparametric sensors in an IoT environment in a case study: an urban supply river with difficult access.

The authors provided a guideline for building a custom IoT network to test and monitor. Then, an analysis and a correlation between the collected data and the climatic variables is performed. Finally, the authors confirmed and demonstrated the applicability of the proposed approach and methodology.

The paper is a potentially useful contribution to the literature but there are some issues that need to be addressed prior publication. In general, the paper is well structured, the motivations are well explained, however some points need to be improved:

Please consider the following points:

-          I suggest that the authors improve the abstract, which should include: Study framework; Purpose of the study; Methodology used and Main conclusions.

  I suggest that the authors consider the inclusion of validation methods for the data coming from the sensors. This is the only way to know if the sensors are providing a good response or not.

 In the Conclusions chapter, I suggest including the limitations of this study and what could be improved in the future.

Author Response

Development of a platform for monitoring the levels of dispersed oxygen of rivers components of a water supply micro basin using programmable microcontrollers

 

Manuscript ID: Water- 2440085 

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.

 

 

1. I suggest that the authors imporve the abstract, wich should include: Study framework; Purpose of the study; Methodology used and Main concluisions.

Reply from Authors: We fully agree with the reviewer and agree to make the , abstract proposing the information more precise, objective, informative, and conclusive.

2. I suggest that the authors consider the inclusion of validation methods for the data coming the sensors. This is the only way to know if the sensors are providing a good response or not..

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. These sensors are not validated with manual measurements made in a conventional way. They are electrical sensors that go through the calibration process and are highly reliable, made by a consolidated company and cited in several scientific articles for years. Atlas Scientific is a company located in NY-USA that specializes in developing professional sensors for this purpose. We clarify these details in introduction of Results and Discussion.

3. In the Conclusions chapter, I suggest including the limitations of this study and what could be improved in the future

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation. We fully agree with the reviewer. Therefore we included new details and information in the conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The article entitled " Development of a platform for monitoring the levels of dispersed oxygen of rivers components of a water supply micro basin using programmable microcontrollers" proposed a platform using a wireless sensor network to monitor the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water at three points in a water station. The researchers discussed how one can design and implement multiparametric sensors in an IoT environment in the context of a case study on a river for urban supply that is difficult to access. The research study is interesting.  However, the following are my comments:

§  The abstract is lacking of indicating measurable achievements obtained through the proposed approach. Abstract should be revised for better clarity and understanding of proposed research.

§  The Introduction / background section also needs to be expanded with more latest research work in this research area.

§  Authors should mention clearly about the novelty of the paper and contributions in the introductory section (preferably a separate sub-section) and also should mention it in the abstract.

§  Proposed methodology is implemented and evaluated with real-time monitoring the environment. Data was collected, results are discussed and well presented.

§  The conclusion section is presented well and well discussed. However, lacking of presenting measurable achievements.  

§  Future recommendations section is not provided. It needs to provide details for researchers to follow and enhance this research approach in future.

English proofreading and improvements are also recommended.

 

Author Response

Development of a platform for monitoring the levels of dispersed oxygen of rivers components of a water supply micro basin using programmable microcontrollers

 

Manuscript ID: Water- 2440085 

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.

1. The abstract is lacking fo indicating measurable achievements obtained through the proposed approach. Abstract should be revised for netter clarity and understading of porposed research

Reply from Authors: We fully agree with the reviewer and agree to make the abstract proposing the information more precise, objective, informative, and conclusive.

2. The introduction section also needs to be expanded with more latest research work in this research area.

Reply from Authors: We appreciate the reviewer's observation and agree to increase the information regarding recent work. Therefore, we include and reference articles dated 2021-22-23.

 

3. Authors should mention clearly about the novelty of the paper and contriuitions in the introductory section and also should mention it in the abstract

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation. We fully agree with the reviewer, therefore we will update accordingly.

 

 

4. The conclusion section is presented well and well discussed. However, lacking of presenting measurable achievements.

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation. We fully agree with the reviewer. Therefore we included new details and information in the conclusion

 

5. Future recommendations section is not provided. It needs to provide details for researchers to follow and enhance this research approach in future.

Reply from Authors: We greatly appreciate the observation made by the reviewer. We do not include a subsection with future work, but in the last chapter (Conclusion), we mention a paragraph especially about

 

“In future work, it is worth investigating the use of new probes such as pH, ORP, turbidity, TDS, electrical conductivity, and salinity and applying Machine Learning, Deep Learning models to learn the relationships between physical sensor metrics and replace most of them with virtual counterparts. The final vision of this future direction is to approach an intelligent environment, monitored 24/7, using a minimum of physical sensors, which automatically make decisions and interact with the data presented in real-time, being able to analyze future environmental imbalances, providing the possibility of anticipating some details of environmental disasters related to the lotic ecosystem, such as rivers of great importance used for urban supply.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors responses are fine

Minor editing of English language required

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

Dear Authors

Wireless sensor network for river monitoring has advanced a lot. The main difference between the platform of this study and existing designs should be explained. 

Could the end users see the monitoring data in real time?

Section 2.3 was written in Spanish. Was the work already published in another language?

 

Author Response

Comments from reviewer #1.

 

1. Wireless sensor network for river monitoring has advanced a lot. The main difference between the platform of this study and existing designs should be explained.

Reply from Authors: We agree with the reviewer comment; therefore, we included this information in the introduction, bringing works related to our study.

 

2. Could the end users see the monitoring data in real time?

Reply from Authors: We thank you for your observation and agree to include more information on this matter. (section 2.4)

 

 

3. Section 2.3 was written in Spanish. Was the work already published in another language?

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation We originally wrote the article in our native language, Portuguese. after writing it is translated into English. We apologize for the mistake in not checking the translation of this paragraph. we made the changes

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors examined a platform for monitoring the levels of dissolved oxygen of rivers components of a water supply micro basin using programmable microcontrollers. The proposed platform may be beneficial to establish a low cost wireless sensor network for water quality monitoring in different areas. However, I think that this lacks novelty and originality, and similar systems would have already been sold. Moreover, I wonder if the monitoring results presented here are truly reliable. My comments are given below.

Lines 20–21: The sentence “Water collection…” has a problem with EnglishLines Lines 135–141: Write these sentences in English.

Result section: First, the authors should mention a QA/QC of the measurement by the equipment.

Line 185: Figure 6a is missing.

Graphs 1–14: Change notation to “Figure”. Moreover, place the caption below the figure.

Lines 191–192: Point P3 shows significantly lower concentrations of dissolved oxygen than other points (Graph 1). What is this reason? Can the authors guarantee that the measurements are correct?

Line 199: What does it mean that the oscillations were from the sensor itself? Further explanation is needed.

Lines 218–222: The reviewer cannot understand whether this is truly the case. This should be explained more concretely based on data.

Graphs 5–7: Show “oxygen saturation” calculated based on water temperature in these figures. This result may be useful for understanding whether the dissolved oxygen concentration depends on water temperature.

Lines 255–257: The reviewer cannot understand whether this is truly the case. This should be explained more concretely based on data.

Lines 273–276: This is the opposite phenomenon to the case of photosynthesis/respiration. How do the authors explain this result?

Lines 318–321: The reviewer does not agree with this. It is not clear whether there are two peaks in dissolved oxygen levels at P2.

Line 340: This difference (3.88 mg/L) is too large, suggesting that there is a serious problem in the measurement by the sensor installed in the stream.

Author Response

Comments from reviewer #2.

 

1. The sentence "Water collection ... " has a problem with Englishlines Lines 135-141: Write these sentences in English

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation We originally wrote the article in our native language, Portuguese. after writing it is translated into English. We apologize for the mistake in not checking the translation of this paragraph. we made the changes.

 

2. Result section: First, the authors should mention a QA/QC of the measurement by the equipment.

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. These sensors are not validated with manual measurements made in a conventional way, therefore, there is no simulated data in this article. They are electrical sensors that go through the calibration process and are highly reliable, made by a consolidated company and cited in several scientific articles for years. Atlas Scientific is a company located in NY-USA that specializes in developing professional sensors for this purpose.

 

3. Line 185: Figure 6a is missing

Reply from Authors: Thanks very for this observation. We corrected and included the missing figure.

 

4. Graphs 1-14: Change notation to "Figure". Moreover, place the caption below the figure

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation. We changed notation.

 

5. Lines 191-192: Point P3 shows significantly lower concentrations of dissolved oxygen than other points (Graph 1). What is this reason? Can the authors guarantee that the measurements are correct?

Reply from Authors: We fully agree with the comment made by the reviewer. Therefore, we include a rationale for this observation.

Observing the readings in P3, with values ​​below the other points are that it is due to a place where the water is more muddy, justified by the state of the probe. Therefore, a place where the water is cloudy and muddy in low light considerably lowers photosynthesis and water oxygenation at that point, in addition to soiling and making it impossible for the dissolved oxygen probe membrane to perform more accurate readings. Please note that at the request of another reviewer, the graphs are now called figures.

 

6. Line 199: What does it mean that the oscillations were from the sensor itself? Further explanation is needed

Reply from Authors: We fully agree with the comment made by the reviewer. We believe that the information was too vague and we justify it in a more informative way (session 3.1).

 

7. Lines 218-222: The reviewer cannot understand whether this is truly the case. This should be explained more concretely based on data

Reply from Authors: We fully agree with the reviewer's observation. After an analysis, we prefer to remove this part because there is not enough scientific data to justify this statement.

 

8. Graphs 5-7: Show "oxygen saturation" calculated based on water temperatura in these figures. This result may be useful for understanding whether the dissolved oxygen concentration depends on water temperatura

Reply from Authors: We are grateful for the reviewer's observation and agree to add information on the correlation of water temperature with dissolved oxygen. We also present it more clearly and include a Pearson correlation matrix to support our arguments. Please note that at the request of another reviewer, the graphs are now called figures.

 

9. Lines 255-257: The reviewer cannot understand whether this is truly the case. This should be explained more concretely based on data

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. We fully agree with the reviewer. Therefore, we conclude a new plot information, where we plot in more detail the behavior of dissolved oxygen with the effect of rain at point 3.

 

10. Lines 273-276: This is the opposite phenomenon to the case of photosynthesis/respiration. How do the authors explain this result?

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. We fully agree with the reviewer in asking why exactly the opposite of what would naturally occur, where photosynthesis in the period of sunlight produces oxygen and consequently would increase the readings and not decrease them. However, checking the plots and data information, we found that we could have done better when analyzing the data. As explained in the article, the main objective of this project is not to analyze the time series of the DO collected over the months but rather to validate the IoT project, to verify the difficulties in installing three collection points in a difficult-to-access location, as seen in P3. So we let this information pass erroneously. Therefore, we apologize to the reviewer and greatly appreciate the objection to the previously existing arguments.

We verified that the oxygen had its normal behavior, we observed the DO rate increasing during the period of solar radiation, and in the night period, it decreased in a daily seasonal cycle.

An observation is: according to a new explanation in section 3.1, we had a problem in P1 with the dissolved oxygen probe due to a possible turbulent movement of the probe providing high readings and outside the normal range of saturation for DO at average temperatures of 20ºC. However, we were still able to observe these same characteristics in P1. Therefore, we put visual information in 2 very detailed figures evaluating this information.

 

11. Lines 318-321: The reviewer does not agree with this. lt is not clear whether there are two peaks in dissolved oxygen leveis at P2

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. We fully agree with the reviewer's observation. After an analysis, we agree and prefer to change this part.

 

12. Line 340: This difference (3.88 mg/L) is too large, suggesting that there is a serious problem in the measurement by the sensor installed in the stream

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. We fully agree with the reviewer. After an analysis, we prefer to change this part.

As mentioned above: according to a new explanation in section 3.1 we had a problem in P1, with the dissolved oxygen probe due to a possible turbulent movement of the probe providing high readings and outside the normal range of saturation for DO at average temperatures of 20ºC.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article “Development of a platform for monitoring the levels of dispersed oxygen of rivers components of a water supply micro basin using programmable microcontrollers” represents the application of programmable microcontrollers to monitor the dispersed oxygen level in the Pirapó river, in Maringá, Brazil.

1-  The validation of these sensors with actual measurements should be given with estimated R² values.

2-  What is the stability of the proposed sensors under varying temperatures and pressures?

3-  The y-axes of the figures should be added.

4-  A table that includes previous studies that developed similar sensors should be added.

5-  The conclusion section is very shallow; it should be improved.

6-  The authors should explain why they selected the oxygen parameter.

7-  Some Figures such as “Figure 2. - Central node block diagram” can be moved to the supplementary file.

8-  Figs. 2, 3, 4, etc. should be represented in terms of R² by fitting the actual vs. simulated data in a linear plot.

9-  The results are very shallow and no deep discussion is given. For example, the worldwide benefit of the proposed sensors should be given (not as a case-study).

Author Response

Comments from reviewer #3.

 

1. The validation of these sensors with actual measurements should be given with estimated R² values

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. These sensors are not validated with manual measurements made in a conventional way. They are electrical sensors that go through the calibration process and are highly reliable, made by a consolidated company and cited in several scientific articles for years. Atlas Scientific is a company located in NY-USA that specializes in developing professional sensors for this purpose.

 

2. What is the stability of the proposed sensors under varying temperatures and pressures?

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation. We clarify these details in section 3.2, where we inform that atmospheric pressure is used in the calibration of the probe, prior to its use. We also inform you that before the system reads the water temperature, it informs the DO probe and after that the DO probe makes the compensation in its internal algorithm, executing the reading.

 

3. The y-axes of the figures should be added

Reply from Authors: Thanks very for this observation. We plotted all the figures and the new included figures, with the Python tool using the seaborn library. we put y-axis, x-axis, titles and legends

 

4. A table that includes previous studies that developed similar sensors should be added

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation. We added in section 1 of this article, several references and information about studies related to this work.

 

5. The conclusion section is very shallow; it should be improved

Reply from Authors: We agree with the reviewer comment; therefore, we improved the conclusion.

 

6. The authors should explain why they selected the oxygen parameter

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this observation. We added in section 1 of this article, references and information about studies related to the DO importance.

 

7. Some Figures such as "Figure 2. - Central node block diagram" can be moved to the supplementary file.

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. We decided to keep the information in place, I hope you understand.

 

8. 2, 3, 4, etc. should be represented in terms of R2 by fitting the actual vs. simulated data in a linear plot

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. We completely agree with the reviewer's observation. As mentioned in comment 1, these sensors are electrical sensors that go through the calibration process and are highly reliable, made by a consolidated company and cited in several scientific articles for years. Atlas Scientific is a company located in NY-USA that specializes in developing professional sensors for this purpose.

 

9. The results are very shallow and no deep discussion is given. For example, the worldwide benefit of the proposed sensors should be given (notas a case-study).

Reply from Authors: Thanks very much for this comment. We include new observations, analyzes and new figures. However, we point out that the main objective of this article is to validate the IoT project in 3 data capture points, with a central node and three collection nodes. Installed in a place of difficult access on the banks of an important river where water is collected for local supply. Future work will be done and the objective will be to analyze the time series, with more sensors and a longer collection time.