Global Water Crisis: Concept of a New Interactive Shower Panel Based on IoT and Cloud Computing for Rational Water Consumption

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research article "Global water crisis: Concept of a new interactive shower panel based on IoT and cloud computing for rational water consumption " brings about a genuine issue to increase water productivity through reducing losses and management. The findings of this article explain reasonably well the problem and effects of water scarcity and the possibility of rational use of this resource in the idea of a Circular Economy (CE) and sustainable development. The research paper is good and well written. However, I would like to suggest the authors can address my comments below for its further improvement.

General comments:

Abstract: Abstract is okay. Properly explained the research aims and methods applied to achieve the objectives.

Introduction: Introduction may alos improve by adding the latest references and approaches. Specific comments:

Line 151- Please rewrite the sentence again.

Line 181-183- Please rewrite the sentence again.  

Line 184-187- Please rewrite the sentence again.

Line 267- Please rewrite the sentence again.

Author Response

Authors' answers to Reviewer's comments and suggestions

The authors of the manuscript would like to thank the Reviewer for his comments, which improved the quality of the manuscript and its content. The individual answers are listed below, following the given comment.

Reviewer: Introduction may also improve by adding the latest references and approaches.

Authors: The Introduction section has been supplemented and the changes are shown in the text.

Reviewer: Line 151- Please rewrite the sentence again.

Authors: The sentence has been changed to:

One cubic meter of air at a temperature of 25℃ can contain up to 23 g of water (maximum moisture content).

Reviewer: Line 181-183- Please rewrite the sentence again.  

Line 184-187- Please rewrite the sentence again.

Authors: Both sentences were changed as below and were marged into one paragraph:

Flood banks are a solution for small and medium-sized floods or provide the possibility of extending the evacuation time in extensive floods.They also cause the water in the riverbed to rise and run off faster. The construction of storage reservoirs will reduce the damage or destruction of buildings, roads, bridges, crops, communication problems, and other material, measurable and immeasurable losses [19].

Reviewer: Line 267- Please rewrite the sentence again.

Authors: The sentence has been changed to:

Due to the direct connection of the device to the Internet, it was decided to use the Trusted Platform Module [33], ensuring a safe connection to the Internet. It secures access to the most popular data clouds, such as Azure or AWS.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have taken the missed attempt to connect issues of drought, water consumption and the concept of the interactive shower panel. The title of the article is not suitable to the aim presented in the Introduction. Furthermore, the purpose of presented issues in chapters 2-4 is not clear and reflects no substantive value.

Particular comments:

The authors should have avoided writing one sentence as one indention – e.g. l. 56, l. 58

The information about „74% of the energy generated in Poland comes from coal” appears twice in the text; it is not necessary.

There should have been considered the issue of Legionella bacteria in the concept of the shower panel.

Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 need to be commented more specifically. It is not clear if Fig. 3 is associated with Poland or all the world.

Too little information is presented about dual installations.  Paragraph 4.3 was treated too generally. By and large dual installations are considered as a promising solution with high potential. Three types of dual installations are existing and they have been already implemented in Poland. The sentence „The basic solution does not purify water” should be changed. It is not consistent with the current law in Poland.

It is not true that :

„The water supply network pressure should be about 5-6 bar” This value concerns inner water installation, not supply network. This paragraph conveys substantive mistakes.

1. 216 – l. 218 writing about water pollution in the chapter about the measurement of water consumption is completely not suitable. These topics present quite different issues.

In what way have the authors found a connection with their idea of shower panel and Road Map of Transformation towards circular economy?

It is not explained how the shower panel helps to reduce water consumption.

The most interesting would be the values measured in the shower panel.

I recommend reading (and maybe citing) publications below:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0539-8

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201910000014

Author Response

Authors' answers to Reviewer's comments and suggestions

The authors of the manuscript would like to thank the Reviewer for his comments and suggestions, which significantly improved the quality of the manuscript and its content. To achieve clarity of the answers, the introduced corrections and comments are presented in such a convention that each original comment from the Reviewer is shown first and the authors' answer is shown under each comment.

Reviewer 2: The authors have taken the missed attempt to connect issues of drought, water consumption and the concept of the interactive shower panel. The title of the article is not suitable to the aim presented in the Introduction. Furthermore, the purpose of presented issues in chapters 2-4 is not clear and reflects no substantive value.

Authors: The authors understand this remark, and that combination of these listed issues may be speculative. The issues of water consumption and the problem of drought (limited water resources) discussed in the article were intended to highlight and justify the need to design, develop and create completely new solutions/concepts that can potentially contribute to water saving. Hence, intentionally, this manuscript was organized so that its first part describes in detail the problem of limited water resources, and the second part describes the proprietary solution, which may contribute to saving water. This type of extensive review of the problem is especially justified when the article does not have the results of experimental research, and its value is a literature review and the concept of an original authors' solution. That is why the authors decided to organize the content of the article in such a way that the reader was aware that even small actions may contribute to achieving a greater goal.

Reviewer 2: The authors should have avoided writing one sentence as one indention – e.g. l. 56, l. 58.

Authors: We agree with this comment. The authors made an editing error at this point during the final formatting of the text. This error was fixed by including this single sentence in the entire paragraph. 

Reviewer 2: The information about „74% of the energy generated in Poland comes from coal” appears twice in the text; it is not necessary.

Authors: We agree with this remark. The authors removed the redundant sentence regarding the same information. 

Reviewer 2: There should have been considered the issue of Legionella bacteria in the concept of the shower panel.

Authors: The shower panel developed by the authors in terms of water outlets (rain shower and other outlet nozzles) does not differ from the commonly used (commercially available) showers. Obtaining the effect of removing Legionella bacteria is possible in our solution, because, for example, it is possible to remotely control the water flow from the level of a smartphone or tablet and you can start the function of a short-term flow of water from the rain shower at any time (when the user is outside the shower cubicle), which can be cold (less than 20°C) or hot (more than 60°C), removing the bacteria. This type of rinsing can also be carried out automatically, so that water at a certain temperature flows out of the rain shower from time to time. The authors added an additional sentence about this functionality in the text. Authors added one sentence: "Moreover, the presented device also has the function of fighting Legionella bacteria, through the programmed functionality of automatic (or remotely controlled) short-term water outflow from the upper rain shower, the temperature of which is set above 60°C (this procedure is performed when the user is outside the shower cabin)."

Reviewer 2: Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 need to be commented more specifically. It is not clear if Fig. 3 is associated with Poland or all the world.

Authors: The authors agree with this remark and have clarified and supplemented the statements. 

Reviewer 2: Too little information is presented about dual installations.  Paragraph 4.3 was treated too generally. By and large dual installations are considered as a promising solution with high potential. Three types of dual installations are existing and they have been already implemented in Poland. The sentence „The basic solution does not purify water” should be changed. It is not consistent with the current law in Poland.

Authors: Additional informations have been added in the text of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2: It is not true that :

„The water supply network pressure should be about 5-6 bar” This value concerns inner water installation, not supply network. This paragraph conveys substantive mistakes.

Authors: The authors changed the incorrect sentence.

Reviewer 2: 216 – l. 218 writing about water pollution in the chapter about the measurement of water consumption is completely not suitable. These topics present quite different issues.

Authors: We agree with this remark. The authors removed this not suitable sentence regarding water pollution.

Reviewer 2: In what way have the authors found a connection with their idea of shower panel and Road Map of Transformation towards circular economy?

Authors: We agree with this remark. Authors added some sentences at the end of the Introduction paragraph: "In the context of the water crisis, the authors - guided by the idea that resources can be saved through awareness-raising and adequate education - proposed own concept, which may contribute to a partial solution to the discussed problem. As part of this concept, an interactive shower panel has been designed to create highly accurate water consumption statistics. In traditional (commercially available) shower systems (shower panels and simple solutions based on one outlet), the user does not know how much water has been used. The authors suggest a solution in which the user will be informed about water consumption on a liquid crystal screen in real-time. Besides, the created water consumption statistics will be sent to the user's mobile device. This concept can be used in households as well as hotels and gyms. The device discussed in this article will notify the administrator of a public building of any failure involving an uncontrolled outflow of water, which will enable a quick reaction such as a main shut-off of the water. According to the authors, this seemingly small contribution to solving a massive problem may be significant because it can increase the awareness of a wider group of people and contribute to more rational water management."

Reviewer 2: It is not explained how the shower panel helps to reduce water consumption.

Authors: We agree with this remark. The authors added the following two sentences: "Access to such information by a Cloud System Administrator is crucial in saving resources because it allows reacting. This enables the analysis of water consumption in real time and allows the user to be informed when the predetermined average consumption values are exceeded. In the approach proposed by the authors, the shower panel will contribute to reducing water consumption by educating the user and making the user aware of the need to protect resources and the environment." 

Reviewer 2: The most interesting would be the values measured in the shower panel.

Authors: We agree with this remark that the most interesting would be the results of measuring water consumption in this shower and it will be included in our future publication(s) in a specialist journal, where all the statistics will be presented. This article is focused on the very concept of the shower panel and the issues that only describe its measurement capabilities. The authors plan to install this shower in a household and hotel for many months or even a whole year, so that reliable statistics can be created based on long-term research. Currently, this device is undergoing tests and laboratory trials, where it is checked, among others the measuring accuracy of water flow.

Reviewer 2: I recommend reading (and maybe citing) publications below:

Authors: The authors read the content of these publications and considered it appropriate to quote them as it adds to the scientific value of the manuscript.

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors considered all of my suggestions. Thank you for your response.

The article is clearer in the current form and is presented in a wise way. The new version of the article is more readable, nevertheless, I have a few suggestions:

1. 195 “The main disadvantage of a dual plant is its price and maintenance costs, which are still high” The sentence should be rewritten.

In chapter 4.5 the authors contain information about the water supply network and inner installation in the buildings. These information are mixed and is difficult to catch what is described in particular sentences.

1. 214 “The inner water installation pressure should be about 5-6 bar, resulting in a significant leak if the leakage is smallest”

I don’t understand this sentence. This is maximal pressure, not demanded. Even not quite small leakage is difficult to catch in the installation in a short time. The authors’ thought is not clear. The sentence should be rewritten.

I’m really not convinced that the proposed solution of shower panel and the issue of water consumption is connected with Circular Economy (CE), what the authors underline 4 times. I agree that is very important aspect however not in this context.

I’m looking forward to reading your article again after the final correction because the research is interesting.   

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for an in-depth analysis of the content of our article and we hope that the current form will largely correspond to the comments.

Reviewer: 195 “The main disadvantage of a dual plant is its price and maintenance costs, which are still high” The sentence should be rewritten.

Authors: The sentence has been rewritten, and we hope that it sounds clearer in the present form.

Reviewer: 214 “The inner water installation pressure should be about 5-6 bar, resulting in a significant leak if the leakage is smallest”. I don’t understand this sentence. This is maximal pressure, not demanded. Even not quite small leakage is difficult to catch in the installation in a short time. The authors’ thought is not clear. The sentence should be rewritten.

Authors: The authors decided to remove the sentence regarding the values ​​of the given pressures, because different literature sources give different values. The discrepancies are considerable in this information. This decision was also supported by the argument that this sentence in this chapter does not add much to the content of this point in a further context.

Reviewer: I’m really not convinced that the proposed solution of shower panel and the issue of water consumption is connected with Circular Economy (CE), what the authors underline 4 times. I agree that is very important aspect however not in this context.

Authors: We agree that there may be too many references in the text on Circular Economy, hence it has been removed at the selected point in the text. However, our solution contributes to reducing water consumption, increasing user awareness, and in this context it is in line with the assumptions of CE. We can also quote here a source literature (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10163-019-00960-z), where CE issues also relate to waste prevention and waste minimization.