Integration of Sensing Framework with a Decision Support System for Monitoring Water Quality in Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript proposed a water quality monitoring system in agriculture. The system was designed consisting of three layers: sensing, processing, and decision making. However, the manuscript cannot be accepted because of its quality. My remarks are listed as follows:

11.     The contributions of this manuscript must be clarified and improved. From my point of view, developing soft computing for water quality status is only the main contribution of this manuscript. It lacks an innovative point and is still insufficient to be accepted in this journal. There are several recently published articles that considered innovative or advanced technologies, for example, the internet of things (IoT), Artificial intelligence (AI), or renewable energy (RE). Some of those articles are listed as follows:

·       A standalone photovoltaic/battery energy-powered water quality monitoring system based on narrowband internet of things for aquaculture: Design and implementation

·       Design of water quality monitoring system for aquaculture ponds based on NB-IoT

·       Monitoring of water quality in a shrimp farm using a FANET

·       Real-time water quality monitoring of River Ganga (India) using internet of things

·       Monitoring groundwater quality with real-time data, stable water isotopes, and microbial community analysis: A comparison with conventional methods

·       Optimization of water quality monitoring programs by data mining

  

22.     From the literature such as [18, 20], they used eight water quality parameters: sodium adsorption rate (SAR), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), percentage of sodium (%Na), electrical conductivity (EC), pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl). However, the manuscript used four water quality parameters: pH, electrical conductivity, temperature, and oxygen reduction potential. The reason for using four parameters instead of eight parameters must be clarified with supporting references.  

33.     In addition, the literature review should be improved. The manuscript should provide critical information and comprehensive syntheses of the literature on this topic area. In addition, the main objectives of the work (clarification of the manuscript) should be clearly formulated in response to the critical analysis of the current literature --> the disadvantages of the existing models/methods --> the research gaps, limitations, and opportunities --> the original contributions. I suggest moving the last two paragraphs on page 11 (lines 341 to 362) to the introduction section.

44.     The critical analysis of each work in the current literature is encouraged, for example, References [10], [11]. Additionally, I suggest avoiding lumped references, for example, [12, 13, 14].

55.     It is good practice to include author surnames when referencing studies, for example, instead of “S. Javaid […],” --> Use: Javaid et al. […].

66.     All acronyms, abbreviations, and notations must be defined with the first use, for example, the definition of pH is missing.

77.     I suggest adding the sensors’ calibration details.

88.     I suggest adding sensor details: brand and specification. The reasons for selecting those sensors should be added.

99.     Why did the authors use two Arduino boards: Mega 2560 and Uno?

110.  In Section 2.3.2, the proposed fuzzy system was vague. The designed membership functions of each parameter in fuzzification must be provided. The membership functions in defuzzification must also be provided.

111.  Which form of membership function did the author use? In Fig. 2(a), the proposed membership functions include Triangular and Piecewise linear functions. How did the authors select and design those membership functions?

112.  Is a fuzzy system really necessary for this application even though there are some small overlaps and no overlaps between membership functions as shown in Fig. 2(b) – 2(e)?     

113.  Why did the authors use 30 measurements per day?    

114.  How did the authors verify the system’s applicability and practicability?     

115.  I suggest adding discussions to future research directions that would also be beneficial.

Author Response

The manuscript proposed a water quality monitoring system in agriculture. The system was designed consisting of three layers: sensing, processing, and decision making. However, the manuscript cannot be accepted because of its quality. My remarks are listed as follows:

Response:

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We really appreciate it. We include here the response for each commen .

11. The contributions of this manuscript must be clarified and improved. From my point of view, developing soft computing for water quality status is only the main contribution of this manuscript. It lacks an innovative point and is still insufficient to be accepted in this journal. There are several recently published articles that considered innovative or advanced technologies, for example, the internet of things (IoT), Artificial intelligence (AI), or renewable energy (RE). Some of those articles are listed as follows:

• A standalone photovoltaic/battery energy-powered water quality monitoring system based on narrowband internet of things for aquaculture: Design and implementation
• Design of water quality monitoring system for aquaculture ponds based on NB-IoT
• Monitoring of water quality in a shrimp farm using a FANET
• Real-time water quality monitoring of River Ganga (India) using internet of things
• Monitoring groundwater quality with real-time data, stable water isotopes, and microbial community analysis: A comparison with conventional methods
• Optimization of water quality monitoring programs by data mining

 Response:

Thank you for your comment. The introduction is upgraded. Some paragraphs are added and also deleted. The contributions of this manuscript are clarified and improved. The contributions are stated in the final paragraph of introduction, final paragraph of results and discussion and in conclusion. We also cite the articles.   

22. From the literature such as [18, 20], they used eight water quality parameters: sodium adsorption rate (SAR), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), percentage of sodium (%Na), electrical conductivity (EC), pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl). However, the manuscript used four water quality parameters: pH, electrical conductivity, temperature, and oxygen reduction potential. The reason for using four parameters instead of eight parameters must be clarified with supporting references.  

Response:

We choose EC, ORP, temperature and pH as the water quality parameters in the developed system because the parameters are frequently sampled or monitored for water quality. It is explained in materials in method. We have planned to add more parameters for the upgraded version of the system.  We also mention future activities in conclusion.

33. In addition, the literature review should be improved. The manuscript should provide critical information and comprehensive syntheses of the literature on this topic area. In addition, the main objectives of the work (clarification of the manuscript) should be clearly formulated in response to the critical analysis of the current literature --> the disadvantages of the existing models/methods --> the research gaps, limitations, and opportunities --> the original contributions. I suggest moving the last two paragraphs on page 11 (lines 341 to 362) to the introduction section.

Response:

-The critical analysis of the current literature in terms of methods and issues are placed in Introduction

-The comparison of our system with the previous methods in terms on research gaps and limitations are explained in the final paragraphs in introduction.

‘In comparison to the previous methods, Hong et al. [9] applied IoT and Arduino AT-Mega328 to interface with multiple sensors such as pH, temperature, turbidity, and total dissolved solids (TDS) to monitor water quality of rivers or streams. However, decision making for water quality was not included in the method and it was complex too. Then, Khatri et al. [22] used Raspberry Pi as the main microcontroller whereas system in [23] used Arduino as the microcontroller. The system in [23] also used Graphical User Inter-face (GUI) for human machine interface (HMI) and fuzzy modeling in Python to display results from five different types of water sensors to monitor water quality. Any analysis for each types of tested water was not included in the system. Meanwhile, Taru et al. [8] used Arduino, interfaced with the LabVIEW to control water quality parameters such as pH, turbidity and temperature. We suggest to include decision support system to be integrated with sensors of water quality parameters.’

‘Thus, we developed a water quality monitoring system by integrating sensing framework with a smart decision-making method for testing water sources used in irrigation such as river, lake, tap and filtered device. The water quality parameters were detected using four sensors; pH, temperature, electrical conductivity (EC), and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). These four parameters are commonly used parameters to measure water quality [24]. The sensors were controlled by an Arduino and Python programming language was used to display the data. Fuzzy logic was applied for the decision-making method based on the range of water quality parameters in terms of membership functions. Our developed system improves method in [8] by adding sensors such as electrical conductivity (EC) and oxygen reduction potential (ORP). Previous method, He et al. [25] was more complex to be applied by farmers due to many mathematical derivation involved. The system used water quality index method to conduct scientific analysis at the end of the process to decide on water quality. On the other hand, our developed system applies fuzzy logic which is useful because the approach is less mathematically intensive than neural networks and genetic algorithms [22]. Thus, the proposed system can provide simplicity, flexibility and produce reliable results.’

 

- The contribution and benefits of our system are explained in Abstract, Results and discussion and Conclusion

Abstract

‘This research can help farmers to monitor the quality of irrigated water which eventually prevents crop disease, enhances crop growth, and increases crop yield.’

Results and discussion

‘In comparison with the previous methods, the developed system introduces soft computing for water quality status. It has high autonomy, fast quality detection due to quick process of decision making, efficient and flexible. It is also communicative where the data can be shared and connected throughout the system.’

Conclusion

‘The system can assist farmers in identifying the polluted water and making decision on reliable irrigation water based on the generated data. Finally, they can opt for the best water resources.’

 

44. The critical analysis of each work in the current literature is encouraged, for example, References [10], [11]. Additionally, I suggest avoiding lumped references, for example, [12, 13, 14].

Response:

The critical analysis for some references are provided in Introduction. We only do critical analysis for some references to avoid long introduction

55. It is good practice to include author surnames when referencing studies, for example, instead of “S. Javaid […],” --> Use: Javaid et al. […].

Response

The S. Javaid et al. ‘ article is deleted based on suggestion from the other reviewer. However, we use your suggestions for other references.

66. All acronyms, abbreviations, and notations must be defined with the first use, for example, the definition of pH is missing.

Response:

All acronyms, abbreviations, and notations are defined with the first use.

77. I suggest adding the sensors’ calibration details.

Response:

We agree with the suggestion. We calibrate the sensors by comparing with the reference standard. The percentage relative errors are calculated. It is explained in Section 2.1.

88. I suggest adding sensor details: brand and specification. The reasons for selecting those sensors should be added.

Response:

The details of the sensors are added in Section 2.1

99. Why did the authors use two Arduino boards: Mega 2560 and Uno?

Response:

The reason is due to capacity of the board to process the data. Since we use 2 arduino, it is easy for us to handle sensor array data processing.We have tried it with one Arduino, but one of the sensors does not work properly.Thus we opt for 2 arduino.

110. In Section 2.3.2, the proposed fuzzy system was vague. The designed membership functions of each parameter in fuzzification must be provided. The membership functions in defuzzification must also be provided.

Response:

Section 2.3.2 is improvised by providing more information of the FIS methods where the parameters for triangular form are also included.

111. Which form of membership function did the author use? In Fig. 2(a), the proposed membership functions include Triangular and Piecewise linear functions. How did the authors select and design those membership functions?

Response:

Our system is based on Mamdani models where the fuzzy inputs are temperature, pH, EC and ORP. Then, the defuzzified output is water quality. We chose Mamdami due to spontaneous and accurate responses and we choose triangular due to simple, can give best response and linear.It is clearly explained in 2.3.2.

112. Is a fuzzy system really necessary for this application even though there are some small overlaps and no overlaps between membership functions as shown in Fig. 2(b) – 2(e)?     

Response:

We believe that the fuzzy system is needed because it can help farmers to monitor water quality to prevent them to use polluted water. The polluted water can truncate the plant growth and reduce the crop production. We realize on the slight overlapping reading. We will improve it for future studies. Besides that, we opt for the rules:

1. If any of water quality parameters are NA, overall water quality will be NA.
2. If all water quality parameters are HACC, then overall water quality will be HACC, otherwise it will be ADE.
3. Based on two assumptions; (1) water quality of the individual parameters will fluctuate between HACC and ADE provided that no single water quality parameters are NA, and (2) if a single water quality parameter is ADE, the overall water quality will be ADE.

 

113. Why did the authors use 30 measurements per day?    

Response:

It is because we want to see if any fluctuation occurs in sensor’s reading. Then, we take average from 30 measurement.

114. How did the authors verify the system’s applicability and practicability?     

Response:

The lab-based experiment is also applied to check the temperature, pH, EC and ORP of the water. The reading is compared to our sensor reading. Our developed system is practical because it is tested using water sources that are used for irrigation.

115. I suggest adding discussions to future research directions that would also be beneficial.

Response:

The future research direction is added in the conclusion.

‘In future, the system can be applied to test polluted rivers in Malaysia such as Kim Kim River in Johor, Klang River in Selangor and Melaka River in Melaka. The system can be further improved by adding chemical and biological sensors to detect any bacteria or virus in the water and integrating with IoT for easy monitoring using mobile phone’

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article Integration of Sensing Framework with A Decision Support 

System for Monitoring Water Quality in Agriculture was studied. The article is very well organized.

For me, table number 1 cannot be justified. I don't see any trend for the parameter value. In some parameters, some numbers overlap. Meanwhile, these parameters are for drinking water. Was the information not available for agricultural water?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The article Integration of Sensing Framework with A Decision Support 

System for Monitoring Water Quality in Agriculture was studied. The article is very well organized.

Thanks for reviewing this manuscript.

 

For me, table number 1 cannot be justified. I don't see any trend for the parameter value. In some parameters, some numbers overlap. Meanwhile, these parameters are for drinking water. Was the information not available for agricultural water?

Response:
Table 1 is justified where some information is added

‘The chosen parameter ranges are based on international water quality standards for safe water to be used by human. We believe that if water is safe for human, it is definitely safe for plants and animals. The parameter range can be adjusted accordingly depending on types of crops and plants to solve issues in irrigated agriculture such as salinity, water infiltration rate, ion toxicity and excessive nutrients. Higher salts in water can affect yield and chloride in water can cause crop damage and reduce yield [40, 41]. Our system is limited to sensing four water quality parameters but can be upgraded by adding more water quality parameters such as chloride, sodium, nitrate and heavy metals.’

Ranges for group Highly Acceptable and Adequate are slightly overlapped because we consider safe water to be used is within these ranges. However, the safest water to be used is highly acceptable.The parameters are based on international standard for safe water to be consumed by human,plant and animals.So far, we did not find any information specifically for irrigated water.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Aiming at the problem of agricultural water quality monitoring, the author developed an agricultural water quality monitoring system based on integration of sensing framework with a smart decision support system, and then monitored filtered water, tap water, river water and lake water. It has certain applicability, but the content still needs revision. After several significant revisions, it can meet the publication requirements of the agriculture journal. The specific questions are as follows:

1.      Line 26 to 29: according to the analysis below, the expression here is not precise.

2.      Line 40 to 41: add references.

3.      Line 42 to 45: the expression of this sentence is difficult to understand.

4.      Line 46 to 47: add references.

5.      Line 50 to 52: safe and unsafe water in agriculture should be elaborated.

6.      Line 53 to 59: the description of this paragraph does not agree with the main idea of the manuscript, and suggested deletion.

7.      Line 87 to 88: the reasons and significance of the need to develop intelligent systems to help farmers monitor irrigation water are not clearly elaborated.

8.      Line 97: the author mentions the previous methods, but in the introduction section, the advantages and disadvantages of the previous methods are not detailed, which will make it impossible for the reader to identify the advantages of the proposed method.

9.      Line 116: according to the introduction in Section 2.1, it is not found that the author has designed the sensor. Therefore, the title should be changed to the selection of sensor is more appropriate.

10.   Line 119: overuse of references.

11.   Line 121 to 122: the range of PH values that are beneficial to the growth of crops should be indicated.

12.   Line 123 to 124: add references.

13.   Line 134 to 135: add references.

14.   Line 162: according to the author's description in Section 2.2, it is not found that the author designed the hardware platform.

15.   Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: explain the physical meaning of the vertical coordinates.

Author Response

Aiming at the problem of agricultural water quality monitoring, the author developed an agricultural water quality monitoring system based on integration of sensing framework with a smart decision support system, and then monitored filtered water, tap water, river water and lake water. It has certain applicability, but the content still needs revision. After several significant revisions, it can meet the publication requirements of the agriculture journal. The specific questions are as follows:

Response:

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We really appreciate it. We include here the response for each comment in red font.

1. Line 26 to 29: according to the analysis below, the expression here is not precise.

Response:

The sentences are modified in order to be precised.

2. Line 40 to 41: add references.

Response:

The reference is added.

 

3. Line 42 to 45:the expression of this sentence is difficult to understand.

Response:

The sentence is fixed.

4. Line 46 to 47: add references.

Response:

The reference is added

5. Line 50 to 52:safe and unsafe water in agriculture should be elaborated.

Response:

The word unsafe water is changed to polluted water. Safe water refers to water that is safe to be used by human, animals and plants

6. Line 53 to 59:the description of this paragraph does not agree with the main idea of the manuscript, and suggested deletion.

Response:

The description is deleted.

7. Line 87 to 88:the reasons and significance of the need to develop intelligent systems to help farmers monitor irrigation water are not clearly elaborated.

Response:

The contribution/significance to develop the system is elaborated in the final paragraph of Introduction. We also state in the final paragraph of results and discussion and conclusion.

8. Line 97:the author mentions the previous methods, but in the introduction section, the advantages and disadvantages of the previous methods are not detailed, which will make it impossible for the reader to identify the advantages of the proposed method.

Response:

The comparison with previous methods are added in two paragraph at the end of section ‘Introduction’ to identify the advantages of the proposed method

9. Line 116:according to the introduction in Section 2.1, it is not found that the author has designed the sensor. Therefore, the title should be changed to the selection of sensor is more appropriate.

Response:

We change it to developing sensing framework where we calibrate, test and connect all sensors

10. Line 119: overuse of references.

Response:
3 references are deleted

11. Line 121 to 122: the range of PH values that are beneficial to the growth of crops should be indicated.

Response:

The range of pH that is common for irrigation water is stated.

12. Line 123 to 124: add references.

Response:

The reference is added

13. Line 134 to 135: add references.

Response:

The reference is added

14. Line 162:according to the author's description in Section 2.2, it is not found that the author designed the hardware platform.

Response:

We agree with that comment. Thus, we change the hardware platform design to developing hardware platform

15. Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: explain the physical meaning of the vertical coordinates.

Response:

The vertical coordinates are explained in Section 3:Results and discussion.

‘The vertical coordinate shows the degree of membership function (MF) where the water quality ranges are assigned by MF. MF can provide decision to validate water quality.’

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After reviewing the responses from the authors, I agree with the responses and corrections in the revised manuscript.
Therefore, the manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Through the author's severe and detailed revision, the quality of the manuscript has been sufficiently improved, which can meet the publication requirements of Agriculture, and the manuscript is recommended for acceptance.