Review Reports - Occupational Risks in a Brazilian Aluminum Forming Industry: Risk Analysis and Work Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the article is written satisfactorily, the state of the art is presented and supported by references, but it should be further developed because in the first part of the study the prism methodology was used with the final number of 52 articles.

The use of this methodology should also be further developed, namely with the indication of the total number of articles, exclusion and inclusion factors, as well as the different stages that led to the final number.

The way in which the scientific article is written from point 2.5 "Statistical Analysis" is more similar to a report, with a lot of description. The same happens with table 2 (line 239) and in lines 268, 269 when referring to a "national" standard.

The tables and figures do not require a source, as they are the author's own (table 2 to 10).

The title for figure 2 should be attached to this.

Tables 5 and 6 the legend are missing l (line 299 and 306)

The discussion and conclusion could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the 52 articles included by Prisma Method.

This manuscript falls within the scope of the Safety and I recommend the publication with these mayor suggestions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive suggestions for improving our manuscript. We are committed to addressing your feedback in detail and will make every effort to meet your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a review of operating data for an aluminum utensil manufacturer in Brazil. There are a variety of factors reviewed, and the results of the study suggest changes.

There are some issues with the manuscript. The most glaring is the data presentation. Beginning with Table 4 - the data (averages and STDs) have 7 significant figures - which is not appropriate. At best - 3. Tables 5 and 6 do not have titles, per the publication requirements. Table 7 shows average temperatures - note that the precision of a thermocouple is about 0.5C - so some of the differences may not be measurable. These errors need to be corrected.

The Introduction discusses the Metallurgical Industry - which is metals smelting from ores. The operations being reviewed are for a Metals Forming operation (note the reference to CNC milling). The Introduction about Metallurgical Industry is inappropriate - it should discuss the metal working industry, and preferably, the aluminum metal forming industry.

Finally, the Final Considerations section presents opportunities for future research. However, it should provide a set of recommendations for improvements in such operations. For example - if the older worker have more accidents because they are "automatic" - there should be more frequent task changes in their day. Should the employer adjust the light levels?

The results are of interest, the presentation of them needs to be improved.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is not clear enough to allow understanding of the essence of the research:

At this level, the meaning of the 3 groups referred to is not understood; also, the 3 groups are not presented clearly enough, vague formulations being used: e.g. “little experience”, ”older operators”, etc.:
- “Group 1: individuals between 18 and 27 years old with little experience in the activity” – ce inseamna “little experience”? – less than 1 year or between 1-2 years? It is necessary to define this aspect;
- “Group 2: ”older operators” – also, the age of the operators included in this category is not revealed.

The Abstract refers to the application of the OWAS method, but the text does not include any data regarding the results obtained from the application of this method.
Section 2 “Materials and Methods” does not include a complete presentation of how the documents included in the study were selected:

The document search method is not presented: keywords, keyword combinations, expressions, etc.;
The inclusion criteria (the criteria based on which the documents were included in the analysis), respectively the criteria for excluding certain studies are not presented: type of documents, period of document search, language of publication, etc.;
Why were the mentioned sources/databases chosen?

The aspects mentioned above must be specified for each database analyzed.

Reference is made to the use of the PRISMA diagram for selecting the documents that were included in the study. It is necessary to include the diagram in the study, precisely to clearly show the initial number of articles, those excluded and the reasons for exclusion.
In section “3 Structured Sociodemographic Questionnaire”: “The first procedure adopted in this research was a survey, in the form of a structured sociodemographic questionnaire”.

It is necessary to detail this section, to show the clarity of the research carried out:

What type of questionnaire was used;
of questions included in the questionnaire and type of questions;
How the questionnaire was distributed;
How were the people to whom the questionnaire was distributed selected;
During what period was the data collected, etc.

An example of relevant questions or a complete questionnaire can be included in the Annex.

In section “3.1 Identification of Pain” - it is also necessary to present the sample of people included in the study.
Consider the sample included in the study as representative?
Section “4.2 Cluster Analysis”: “The cluster analysis showed that, based on the information provided by the research participants (…)” requires additional completions and clarifications:

Including data collected from participants and analyzed using this method;
Including the graph, so that the results referred to can be viewed;
Detailing the results obtained, including justification of the statement: “The results obtained imply opportunities for improvement in the development of the production process, as by identifying possible flaws in the process it is possible to act so that they can be mitigated and even remedied, enabling the reduction of possible discomforts or constraints related to the work environment and work accidents.”

Section “4 Final considerations” - requires a revision for a clearer systematization of the main results obtained; inclusion of the own contribution to this field; inclusion of limitations. It is also necessary to mention the relevance of this study.
The references included in the References section do not follow the format specified by the journal Safety (MDPI). They need to be adjusted to comply with the requirements imposed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 195: Cluster analysis, also known as Cluster Analysis,...

I don't understand what authors are trying to explaing in this passage.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The writing of the article has improved significantly, the authors have included the suggestions presented, however, there is no longer a reference to table 1 in the text, previously it was on line 136.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and constructive feedback, which were invaluable in improving the quality of our manuscript. Without a doubt, all your suggestions were of utmost importance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is improved. Some minor issues to discuss with the editor:

Line 96 - "Furthermore" - misspelled

Line 112, 123 - use "metalworking" not "metallurgical" here; the other uses of "metallurgical" are fine.

I continue to have difficulties with the data in Tables 4, 5 and 6. In Table 3- the noise for a CNC operator is reported as 88.3 dB. In Table 4 - it is reported as 8.833. If the value of 8.833 is correct - the operation is virtually silent. And, compare the data is Table 4 with Figure 5 - Transport is graphed at just below 80 - but the value is 7.823 - they don't match.

Also - I continue to say that the value of 94.720 is 5 significant figures - is that really correct? Surely, 94.7 is the proper way to report the value. In Table 7 - CNC Operator - Temperatures as "25.703 – 26.696" - surely that is 25.7 - 26.7. Table 8 has LUX values - accurate with 7 Figures - how is that possible? In Lines 197 - 199 - you indicate that the device is calibrated to +/- 3%. 7 figures of accuracy is not justified, and it needs to be corrected.

The rest of the changes are acceptable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your kind response. I apologize for the inadequacy of my comment. Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the issues. The paper should be acceptable now.

Author Response

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your clarification.

I could feel your strong desire to contribute to the safety of workers.

2. Materials and Methods

D) “2.5 Statistical analysis”

Did authors use a calculator to do the calculations? For example, if you used R, it would be good to include the version and (if utilized) the package authors used.

6. 3.RESULTS
A) “3.1 Characterization of the company”

Thank you for providing the criteria for selecting the target factories. How did the authors decide on the candidate factories, and how did they use these indicators to evaluate them and select the factories to be surveyed?
In selecting the research subjects, it would be desirable to objectively describe how “the prior work accidents, environmental concerns related to the production line, and the subjective factors of each sample component” were evaluated.
To “for prioritizing workers' occupational health and implementing effective control measures” among factories that authors want to make improvement not only just in this factory, but it would also be useful mentioning representativeness of the factory being studied for planning future studies. Since the limitations associated with the findings obtained in the factory should be useful for future research aimed at achieving greater comprehensiveness

D) Line 280: “As can be seen in Table 2,”

Readers would understand that this factory has a wide distribution of sound, from a noisy environment of 94.7 dB to a quiet environment of 7.8 dB.

G) Table 8

A confidence interval (CI) does not indicate the probability that the true value lies within the given range for a specific sample.
Did it never go above 350.0001, and did it never go below 349.9999?

These are the contents that I have already conveyed to the editor.

The 34th reference in the bibliography is still duplicated.
The resolution of Figure 4 needs to be improved.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I respect authors' efforts to improve the manuscript.

Materials and Methods

Figure 1

The second item from the top on the right-hand side, “Excluded records: 1492”, is the number of removals in identification, and it overlaps with the item at the top. Isn't the number of excluded in screening 0?
The "Deleted reports:" at the bottom of the right column should clearly indicate that n is 0 for each of the three reasons. Alternatively, it can be displayed as 0 in the summary.

RESULTS

Table 4

For drivers and truckers, the average noise index is 7.8dB, but isn't that too low?

Figure 4

The resolution of Figure 4 still needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your attention and, in particular, for your insightful comments, which have undoubtedly played a significant role in enhancing the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf