Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comparative analysis of a series of magnetic field measurements in three types of current Japanese vehicle models (electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and internal combustion engine vehicles), identifying the levels of Magnetic Flux Density (MFD) and their sources at various positions within the vehicles. Additionally, comparative measurements are presented against magnetic field data obtained in 2013 and data from the Seibersdorf laboratory in Austria. The results of this study are considered to have a certain degree of relevance for risk communication to the public regarding electromagnetic fields emitted by current automobiles.

In general, the methodology of the study is unclear. It is necessary to explicitly describe the structure of the study’s development by detailing each of its phases or stages aimed at achieving the stated objectives. The topic should be addressed in a clear and comprehensible manner, supported by pertinent and up-to-date sources of information.

The manuscript should be carefully reviewed to correct typographical errors. For example, in line 10, a parenthesis is missing.

It is suggested to include the term “magnetic flux density” in the Keywords section.

In line 105, it is recommended to include an introductory paragraph to Section 3.

The numbers presented in Table 1 are not legible; this issue should be corrected.

The acronym BGMF is mentioned in the manuscript; its full meaning should be provided.

A description of Figure 8 should be incorporated.

Titles and subtitles throughout the manuscript should be reviewed. For instance, subtitle 3.2 is not shown under Section 3.

Several of the figures included are only superficially explained.

The manuscript refers to a methodology used to conduct the measurements (following the procedure carried out in 2013); however, no information is provided in this regard. It is important to present a detailed account of the methodology used for the measurement process.

A background and/or state-of-the-art section regarding the subject matter addressed in the manuscript should be included, supported by relevant and up-to-date sources.

Statistical data and their descriptions related to the national vehicle fleet, its characteristics, and implications of magnetic fields should be incorporated. Additionally, a description of the international standard IEC 62764-1:2022 and its characteristics should be included.

It is important to emphasize, in some part of the manuscript, the significance and impact of the study. Relevant and updated sources of information should be used to support this.

Overall, the manuscript requires substantial strengthening of its scientific foundation (theoretical support) to justify the processes and results presented.

The references cited in the manuscript are very limited, with only one out of six sources published in the last five years. Therefore, it is a priority to enhance the literature review using more current and relevant sources.

The discussion section must be significantly reinforced by describing the comparison of the results with other studies in a more detailed and critical manner, supported by recent and pertinent literature.

The conclusions must be substantially expanded in relation to the subject addressed throughout the manuscript, and the future perspectives derived from the study should be strengthened.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,We sincerely thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and improve our work.

We have addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. All revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each comment.

 

Comment1: The manuscript presents a comparative analysis of a series of magnetic field measurements in three types of current Japanese vehicle models (electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and internal combustion engine vehicles), identifying the levels of Magnetic Flux Density (MFD) and their sources at various positions within the vehicles. Additionally, comparative measurements are presented against magnetic field data obtained in 2013 and data from the Seibersdorf laboratory in Austria. The results of this study are considered to have a certain degree of relevance for risk communication to the public regarding electromagnetic fields emitted by current automobiles.

 

Response1: We thank the reviewer for recognizing the significance of our study.

 

Comment2: In general, the methodology of the study is unclear. It is necessary to explicitly describe the structure of the study’s development by detailing each of its phases or stages aimed at achieving the stated objectives. The topic should be addressed in a clear and comprehensible manner, supported by pertinent and up-to-date sources of information.

 

Response2: In the Introduction section, we have added text to clarify the research objectives—namely, measuring current vehicle models in Japan, conducting IEC-compliant measurements, comparing results with reference levels, and publishing data that can be used for risk communication—so that it is clear that the study achieves these aims.

 

Comment3: The manuscript should be carefully reviewed to correct typographical errors. For example, in line 10, a parenthesis is missing.

 

Response3: I have corrected typos throughout the paper, starting with the typo in line 10.

 

Comment4: It is suggested to include the term “magnetic flux density” in the Keywords section.

 

Response4: We have added magnetic flux density to the list of keywords.

 

Comment5: In line 105, it is recommended to include an introductory paragraph to Section 3.

 

Response5: We have added an introductory statement to the Results section.

 

Comment6: The numbers presented in Table 1 are not legible; this issue should be corrected.

 

Response6: We have reduced the font size in Tables 1 through 3 to ensure that the text does not overlap with the table lines.

 

Comment7: The acronym BGMF is mentioned in the manuscript; its full meaning should be provided.

 

Response7:We have added an explanation defining BGMF at line 217.

 

Comment8: A description of Figure 8 should be incorporated.

 

Response8: We have added an explanation of the sources of the magnetic field in Figure 8.

 

Comment9: Titles and subtitles throughout the manuscript should be reviewed. For instance, subtitle 3.2 is not shown under Section 3.

 

Response9: We have added subheadings to Section 3 and standardized the formatting of all subheadings throughout the manuscript.　

 

Comment10: Several of the figures included are only superficially explained.

 

Response10: In the Results section, since the source at measurement position A (Figure 8) was not previously described, we have now added the sources of the peak frequency components. Additionally, we have included an analysis and explanation of the operating mechanisms in the Discussion section.

 

Comment11: The manuscript refers to a methodology used to conduct the measurements (following the procedure carried out in 2013); however, no information is provided in this regard. It is important to present a detailed account of the methodology used for the measurement process.

 

Response11: We have added descriptions in the Methods section covering the procedures of the 2013 study and the measurement methods implemented in the present study for comparative purposes.

 

Comment12: A background and/or state-of-the-art section regarding the subject matter addressed in the manuscript should be included, supported by relevant and up-to-date sources.

 

Response12: We have added a section for the literature review.

 

Comment13: Statistical data and their descriptions related to the national vehicle fleet, its characteristics, and implications of magnetic fields should be incorporated. Additionally, a description of the international standard IEC 62764-1:2022 and its characteristics should be included.

 

Response13: We have added a description of the IEC standard to the Introduction section.

 

Comment14: It is important to emphasize, in some part of the manuscript, the significance and impact of the study. Relevant and updated sources of information should be used to support this.

 

Response14:We have added a statement of the objectives of this study and included additional references in the Introduction section.

 

Comment15: Overall, the manuscript requires substantial strengthening of its scientific foundation (theoretical support) to justify the processes and results presented.

 

Response15: We have included discussion in the Discussion section that incorporates references and considers the sources of magnetic fields.

 

Comment16: The references cited in the manuscript are very limited, with only one out of six sources published in the last five years. Therefore, it is a priority to enhance the literature review using more current and relevant sources.

 

Response16: We have added a new literature review section and included additional references.

 

Comment17: The discussion section must be significantly reinforced by describing the comparison of the results with other studies in a more detailed and critical manner, supported by recent and pertinent literature.

 

Response17: We have added discussion in the Discussion section that incorporates the additional references to analyze the measurement results and their sources.　

 

Comment18: The conclusions must be substantially expanded in relation to the subject addressed throughout the manuscript, and the future perspectives derived from the study should be strengthened.

 

Response18: We have added content on future perspectives to the Discussion section.　

 

We hope that the revisions meet the reviewers’ expectations. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hiromichi Fukui

      Japan EMF Information Center

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses the magnetic field measurements of different vehicles. The work is innovative and has significant contribution to the scientific research field. However, a few revisions suggested to improve the quality of the manuscript.

This work only refers to RMS values, and no discussion about the intervals and error margins. It is suggested to add further details for better understanding.

The peak frequency components are identified, but not discussed and analyzed in detail. It is suggested to explain and analyse the peak frequency components along with their mechanism.

The discussion section needs to be improved in terms of vehicle design, public safety and regulatory perspectives along with the limitations of this study.

There are some formatting and typo errors in the manuscript, it is suggested to correct all of them to improve the overall quality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some formatting and typo errors in the manuscript, it is suggested to correct all of them to improve the overall quality.

Thanks 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,We sincerely thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and improve our work.

We have addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. All revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each comment.

 

Comment1: This paper focuses the magnetic field measurements of different vehicles. The work is innovative and has significant contribution to the scientific research field. However, a few revisions suggested to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Response1: We thank the reviewer for recognizing the significance of our study.

 

Comment2: This work only refers to RMS values, and no discussion about the intervals and error margins. It is suggested to add further details for better understanding.

 

Response2: Because the ICNIRP reference levels are expressed as RMS values and the evaluation is conducted by comparing them with the ICNIRP limits for risk communication purposes, only RMS values are mentioned.

 

Comment3: The peak frequency components are identified, but not discussed and analyzed in detail. It is suggested to explain and analyse the peak frequency components along with their mechanism.

 

Response3: Regarding measurement position A (Figure 8), which previously lacked a description of the source, we have now specified the sources of the peak frequency components and added analysis and explanation of the operating mechanisms in the Discussion section.

 

Commnent4: The discussion section needs to be improved in terms of vehicle design, public safety and regulatory perspectives along with the limitations of this study.

 

Response4: With respect to public safety and regulatory perspectives, we have already specified that the results are below the ICNIRP reference levels. Additionally, we have expanded the Discussion section to address the study’s limitations, including considerations related to vehicle design.

 

Commnent5: There are some formatting and typo errors in the manuscript, it is suggested to correct all of them to improve the overall quality.

 

Response5: We have corrected the formatting and typographical errors throughout the entire manuscript.

 

We hope that the revisions meet the reviewers’ expectations. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hiromichi Fukui

      Japan EMF Information Center

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors report magnetic field measurements on 3 types of cars and at various positions with the vehicles to evaluate whether the low frequency emissions are aligned with the public exposure guidelines. The authors additionally provide a comparison of the measurements with magnetic field data obtained in 2013 and with measurement from a different lab to ensure that the magnetic field amplitude is within limits. The manuscript is interesting and relevant to the topic of the journal; however it reads as a technical report and not as a research paper. The authors need to address major comments before publication:
• The introduction must be significantly enhanced to motivate the paper and explain why magnetic measurements are required and what is different from previous studies.
• The authors should highlight the key innovations of their work, elaborating on the deviation from previously published papers.
• Comment on the overall writing style: do not use 1 or 2 sentences in each paragraph and then change to the next paragraph.
• Please mention the noise level and accuracy limits for the MF measurement device that you use.
• In Table 1 you mention: *: Equivalent to BGMF. What does it mean? Please clarify and also explain the acronym BGMF.
• Line 122: “The former are likely due to rotating sources such as tires and motors” – please provide some reference for this statement.
• Number equation (1)
• The reference limits from ICNIRP that you mention are 3 orders of magnitude higher than the measurements, a fact that degrades the motivation of the present work. Are there any other reference limits from different organizations?
• Moreover, a section with related work must be added to present alternative techniques that are used in magnetic measurements of vehicles and also in other fields (cars, trains, spacecrafts). Some sample references:
o "Measurement of the extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic field emission from a ship." Measurement science and technology 22.8 (2011): 085709.
o "A novel multi-magnetometer facility for on-ground characterization of spacecraft equipment." Measurement 146 (2019): 948-960.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise and improve our work.

We have addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. All revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each comment.

 

Comment1: In this manuscript, the authors report magnetic field measurements on 3 types of cars and at various positions with the vehicles to evaluate whether the low frequency emissions are aligned with the public exposure guidelines. The authors additionally provide a comparison of the measurements with magnetic field data obtained in 2013 and with measurement from a different lab to ensure that the magnetic field amplitude is within limits. The manuscript is interesting and relevant to the topic of the journal; however it reads as a technical report and not as a research paper. The authors need to address major comments before publication:

 

Response1: We thank the reviewer for recognizing the significance of our study.

 

Comment2: The introduction must be significantly enhanced to motivate the paper and explain why magnetic measurements are required and what is different from previous studies.

 

Response2: In the Introduction section, we have added text to clarify the research objectives—namely, measuring current vehicle models in Japan, conducting IEC-compliant measurements, comparing results with reference levels, and publishing data that can be used for risk communication—so that it is clear that the study achieves these aims.

 

Comment3: The authors should highlight the key innovations of their work, elaborating on the deviation from previously published papers.

 

Response3: We have added the research objectives to the Introduction section to make the novelty of the study more explicit.　

 

Comment4: Comment on the overall writing style: do not use 1 or 2 sentences in each paragraph and then change to the next paragraph.

 

Response4: We have added content and reviewed the overall structure of the manuscript.

 

Comment5: Please mention the noise level and accuracy limits for the MF measurement device that you use.

 

Response5: We have added details about the noise level and accuracy to the measurement device description.

 

Comment6: In Table 1 you mention: *: Equivalent to BGMF. What does it mean? Please clarify and also explain the acronym BGMF.

 

Response6: We have added an explanation defining BGMF at line 217.

 

Comment7: Line 122: “The former are likely due to rotating sources such as tires and motors” – please provide some reference for this statement.

 

Response:7: We have added a new References section and included the supporting papers [23–24].

 

Comment8: Number equation (1)

 

Response8: A reference number has been added to Equation (1) to clearly indicate the source.

 

Comment9: The reference limits from ICNIRP that you mention are 3 orders of magnitude higher than the measurements, a fact that degrades the motivation of the present work. Are there any other reference limits from different organizations?

 

Response9: The ICNIRP reference levels are the international standard for assessing the health effects of electromagnetic field exposure, and other organizations adopt similar limits. Therefore, comparisons in this study are made only with the ICNIRP reference levels. From a risk communication perspective, we believe that a large margin between the measured values and the reference limits does not diminish the significance of the study.

 

Comment10: Moreover, a section with related work must be added to present alternative techniques that are used in magnetic measurements of vehicles and also in other fields (cars, trains, spacecrafts). Some sample references:

Measurement of the extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic field emission from a ship. Measurement Science and Technology 22.8 (2011): 085709.

A novel multi-magnetometer facility for on-ground characterization of spacecraft equipment. Measurement 146 (2019): 948–960.

 

Response10: We have summarized vehicle-related prior studies in the literature review section. References not directly related to vehicles were excluded. Additionally, in the Discussion section, we compared and analyzed our measurement results in relation to previous studies.

 

We hope that the revisions meet the reviewers’ expectations. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hiromichi Fukui

      Japan EMF Information Center

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this latest version of the manuscript, it is considered that some of the observations raised in the initial version have been addressed; however, the following comments still require attention:

• In the response to the first review, it is stated that additional text has been incorporated into the Introduction section to clarify the research objectives. Nevertheless, it is considered that the methodology of the study remains unclear. It is necessary to outline the structure of the development of the work, describing in detail each of its phases or stages towards achieving the stated objectives. The topic should be addressed in a clear and comprehensible manner, supported by relevant and up-to-date sources of information.
• An introductory paragraph should be incorporated at the beginning of Section 2, in order to describe the content presented in said section (line 63).
• An introductory paragraph should be incorporated at the beginning of Section 3, in order to describe the content addressed in said section (line 187).
• In lines 373 and 374, Equation 1 is mentioned; further information on this equation is required.
• In line 380, the displayed equation lacks its corresponding numbering.
• The Conclusions section must be significantly expanded in relation to the topic addressed throughout the manuscript and to the results obtained and discussed. Furthermore, it is necessary to reinforce the future perspectives derived from the study.
• The manuscript requires considerable enhancement of its scientific dimension (theoretical foundation) in order to support the processes and results presented. It is recommended that the authors incorporate mathematical, statistical and/or algorithmic analyses, or other theoretical elements or analyses, to strengthen the scientific rigour of the study, ensuring that it is not limited merely to the presentation of measurements. A comparison could be incorporated between these results and those obtained in previous studies, conducting a thorough comparative analysis that may allow for more profound and meaningful conclusions.
• In general, the references presented are appropriate; however, approximately 30% of the sources cited are from the past five years. Therefore, it is a priority to strengthen the literature review by incorporating more recent and pertinent sources to support the information presented throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you once again for your careful review and valuable additional comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to further revise and improve our work in response to your feedback.

We have addressed all of the new comments and suggestions provided in this second round of review. All corresponding revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below, we provide detailed point-by-point responses to each comment.

Comment1: In this latest version of the manuscript, it is considered that some of the observations raised in the initial version have been addressed; however, the following comments still require attention:

Response1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate that you acknowledge some of the issues raised in the first round have been addressed in this revised manuscript. Regarding the remaining comments, we recognize that further revisions are necessary. We have carefully reviewed these points and provide detailed responses and corresponding changes in the manuscript below to ensure they are fully addressed.

Comment2: In the response to the first review, it is stated that additional text has been incorporated into the Introduction section to clarify the research objectives. Nevertheless, it is considered that the methodology of the study remains unclear. It is necessary to outline the structure of the development of the work, describing in detail each of its phases or stages towards achieving the stated objectives. The topic should be addressed in a clear and comprehensible manner, supported by relevant and up-to-date sources of information.

Response2: Regarding the research approach, a new section titled Measurement standards and guidelines related to exposure assessment in the field of electric vehicles was added to describe in detail the key standards and guidelines essential for conducting this study. Additionally, a new Research Approach section was created to explain the specific methods for achieving the research objectives, with supporting references.

Comment3: An introductory paragraph should be incorporated at the beginning of Section 2, in order to describe the content presented in said section (line 63).

Response3: An introductory paragraph was added at the beginning of the section.

Comment4: An introductory paragraph should be incorporated at the beginning of Section 3, in order to describe the content addressed in said section (line 187).

Response4: An introductory paragraph was added at the beginning of the section.

Comment5: In lines 373 and 374, Equation 1 is mentioned; further information on this equation is required.

Response5: A detailed explanation of the ICNIRP guidelines was added to the section Measurement standards and guidelines related to exposure assessment in the field of electric vehicles, including a description of Equation 1.

Comment6: In line 380, the displayed equation lacks its corresponding numbering.

Response6: The corresponding numbers are provided.

Comment7: The Conclusions section must be significantly expanded in relation to the topic addressed throughout the manuscript and to the results obtained and discussed. Furthermore, it is necessary to reinforce the future perspectives derived from the study.

Response7: In the Conclusion section, a summary of the results and their significance was added, along with additional discussion on future perspectives.

Comment8: The manuscript requires considerable enhancement of its scientific dimension (theoretical foundation) in order to support the processes and results presented. It is recommended that the authors incorporate mathematical, statistical and/or algorithmic analyses, or other theoretical elements or analyses, to strengthen the scientific rigour of the study, ensuring that it is not limited merely to the presentation of measurements. A comparison could be incorporated between these results and those obtained in previous studies, conducting a thorough comparative analysis that may allow for more profound and meaningful conclusions.

Response8: The primary objective of our study is to provide fundamental measurement data that serves as a basis for risk communication with the general public. Specifically, we aim to confirm that the measured RMS magnetic flux densities comply with ICNIRP guidelines, thereby demonstrating that they remain at levels that do not cause known acute health risks such as nerve stimulation. This focus on guideline compliance is widely adopted in international regulatory and risk communication contexts. Incorporating additional mathematical, statistical, or algorithmic analyses would go beyond the scope of our objective, which is to offer accessible, practical, and policy-relevant information. Considering our aim to support transparent, evidence-based risk communication, we believe that this approach is appropriate. We hope this explanation helps clarify the rationale behind our study design choices.

Comment9: In general, the references presented are appropriate; however, approximately 30% of the sources cited are from the past five years. Therefore, it is a priority to strengthen the literature review by incorporating more recent and pertinent sources to support the information presented throughout the manuscript.

Response9: References from the past five years relevant to this study were added, and discussion incorporating these references was included in the Discussion section.

We hope that the revisions meet the reviewers’ expectations. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Hiromichi Fukui

      Japan EMF Information Center

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to the comments raised by the reviewers, significantly enhancing the quality of their manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this positive and encouraging feedback. We are grateful that our revisions have been found to significantly enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Sincerely,

Hiromichi Fukui

      Japan EMF Information Center

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this latest version of the manuscript, it is considered that the observations raised in previous versions have been satisfactorily addressed. The section concerning the employed methodology has been favourably revised, presenting the subject matter with greater clarity and comprehensibility; moreover, the information is supported by reliable and pertinent sources. The conclusions have been strengthened in accordance with the work undertaken and the results achieved; likewise, the perspectives derived from the study are clearly articulated.

Consider the following identified issues:
– In line 90, the word “Guideline” should be corrected.
– Given the extensive use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript, it is recommended to include a dedicated section for abbreviations.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you once again for your careful review and valuable additional comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to further revise and improve our work in response to your feedback.

We have addressed all of the new comments and suggestions provided in this third round of review. All corresponding revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below, we provide detailed point-by-point responses to each comment.

 

Comments 1: In this latest version of the manuscript, it is considered that the observations raised in previous versions have been satisfactorily addressed. The section concerning the employed methodology has been favourably revised, presenting the subject matter with greater clarity and comprehensibility; moreover, the information is supported by reliable and pertinent sources. The conclusions have been strengthened in accordance with the work undertaken and the results achieved; likewise, the perspectives derived from the study are clearly articulated.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for these positive and encouraging comments. We appreciate the recognition that the observations raised in previous rounds have been satisfactorily addressed. We are pleased to know that the revisions to the methodology section have improved its clarity and comprehensibility, and that the use of reliable and pertinent sources has been well received. We also thank the reviewer for acknowledging the strengthening of the conclusions and the articulation of perspectives derived from the study. We believe these improvements enhance the overall quality and utility of the manuscript.

 

Comment 2: Consider the following identified issues:

– In line 90, the word “Guideline” should be corrected.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected “Guideline” to the appropriate form as suggested in line 90.

 

Comment 3: – Given the extensive use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript, it is recommended to include a dedicated section for abbreviations.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful recommendation. Accordingly, we have included a dedicated “Abbreviations” section in the manuscript to ensure greater clarity for readers given the extensive use of abbreviations.

In addition, we have revised the manuscript to ensure consistent use of abbreviations throughout, including replacing terms that were previously left unabbreviated.

 

We have added the missing sections, including Author Contributions, Funding, Data Availability Statement, and Conflicts of Interest, to ensure the manuscript is complete and meets the journal’s requirements.

We hope that the revisions meet the reviewers’ expectations. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Hiromichi Fukui

      Japan EMF Information Center