Individual Environmental Risk Assessment and Management in Industry 4.0: An IoT-Based Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is very good to put into connection Industry 4.0. and environmental issues together. Since 2021 there's a discussion on this topic, with Industry even evolving to 5.0.
Also mentioned occupational diseases and transition to topic of ergonomics is very well placed here.
To sum up first part, the introduction is well written plus well cited previous research in the area.
Materials and methods also OK.
Why did you start results chapter with possible risks? Also why did you choose Mosquitto, Telegraf, InfluxDB and Grafana as integration software?
Overall the article is a very good start of research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the Reviewer for carefully examining our work and for providing us with the opportunity of revising and improving the manuscript. We have addressed all your comments and suggestions and modified the paper accordingly. All modifications are marked in blue color in the revised manuscript to facilitate the review process.
Please see below our detailed responses to every single comment raised.
Yours sincerely,
The Authors
It is very good to put into connection Industry 4.0. and environmental issues together. Since 2021 there's a discussion on this topic, with Industry even evolving to 5.0.
The authors thank you for this comment. We have added a short paragraph about Industry 5.0.
Also mentioned occupational diseases and transition to topic of ergonomics is very well placed here.
To sum up first part, the introduction is well written plus well cited previous research in the area.
Materials and methods also OK.
The authors thank you for these comments.
Why did you start results chapter with possible risks?
The authors thank you for this comment. To use our solution, it is required to complete the jobs and risks registration first on the web interface. This explanation has been added in sections 2.2.4. Webserver implementation and 3.1. Webserver tests.
Also why did you choose Mosquitto, Telegraf, InfluxDB and Grafana as integration software?
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. These solutions were chosen because they are used in a wide variety of projects and have very good documentation. This explanation has been added to the text.
Overall the article is a very good start of research.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I am pleased to review the manuscript. The authors have done well in structuring their study. Overall, the sections are elaborately written. Hence, I believe that this study can be considered for publication provided the authors are ready to revise their manuscript as per the minor comments provided below:
• Abstract: The abstract should include at the beginning to provide a brief background of the study.
• The keywords appear to be more like long phrases. I suggest revising the list of keywords and making them more concise.
• Introduction: The contributions of the study should be precisely highlighted.
• Please provide a sentence or two with more details regarding the contributions of this work and main outcomes from the experiment/practical application .
• Please add study measures in the revised manuscript.
• Conclusion: Please mention the limitations of the study and mention the future research direction as well.
• Proofread the manuscript to correct grammatical errors and smoothen the flow of contents.
Look forward to receiving the revised version soon.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the Reviewer for carefully examining our work and for providing us with the opportunity of revising and improving the manuscript. We have addressed all your comments and suggestions and modified the paper accordingly. All modifications are marked in blue color in the revised manuscript to facilitate the review process.
Please see below our detailed responses to every single comment raised.
Yours sincerely,
The Authors
I am pleased to review the manuscript. The authors have done well in structuring their study. Overall, the sections are elaborately written. Hence, I believe that this study can be considered for publication provided the authors are ready to revise their manuscript as per the minor comments provided below:
Abstract: The abstract should include at the beginning to provide a brief background of the study.
The keywords appear to be more like long phrases. I suggest revising the list of keywords and making them more concise.
The authors of the paper thank you for these comments. The abstract and keywords have been modified.
Introduction: The contributions of the study should be precisely highlighted.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The contributions were added in Introduction.
Please provide a sentence or two with more details regarding the contributions of this work and main outcomes from the experiment/practical application.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The contributions were added in Introduction and regarding the outcomes from the experiment new paragraphs were added at the end of section 3.
Please add study measures in the revised manuscript.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. Measurements were added in section 2.3.
Conclusion: Please mention the limitations of the study and mention the future research direction as well.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The required information was added in conclusion.
Proofread the manuscript to correct grammatical errors and smoothen the flow of contents.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The manuscript has been corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript attempts to present the framework current status of individual environmental risk assessment and management in Industry 4.0 and, more specific, an IoT based model. The paper is very well-written and has the style and language demanded for a potential publication. Some clarifications should be made, along with some corrections here and there, but I believe that the paper will be ready for publication upon the conduction of the aforementioned corrections. The list of references would be nice to be expanded, since they seem to be few in quantity.
My points are analytically listed below
Points for consideration:
• Point 1: why do authors write down the word “occupational” with a capital O? Can you clarify why you write it down this way?
• Point 2: In line 32, you are mentioning a numerical death rate. Judging by the references listed in line 41, I guess that the number is derived from there? It would be better if you inserted the specific relevant reference in line 32.
• Point 3: In lines 45 (or on line 51 if you prefer), please insert the following relevant references about Industry 4.0 and its technologies.
· 10.1155/2022/5023011
· 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004
• Point 4: In line 62, please also include the following relevant paper about PPEs made out of 3D Printing, a pillar manufacturing technology of Industry 4.0.
· 10.1007/s43615-021-00047-8
· Point 5: Lines 260-264 are truly interesting and show how the system can operate and collect data in a remote way. Authors should write a few lines about their future work, showing their intention to test the device in a factory environment.
• Point 6: As a more general comment, in the conclusions sections (maybe in the second paragraph of the introduction as well) you should mention the fact that the legislation framework must be optimized as well and should suggest or even oblige the Industry to incorporate such devices in the working areas. Industry 4.0 framework has any such concerns or just provides the physical and digital means to perform this operation? I believe that this would strengthen the article more.
The reviewer.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the Reviewer for carefully examining our work and for providing us with the opportunity of revising and improving the manuscript. We have addressed all your comments and suggestions and modified the paper accordingly. All modifications are marked in blue color in the revised manuscript to facilitate the review process.
Please see below our detailed responses to every single comment raised.
Yours sincerely,
The Authors
The manuscript attempts to present the framework current status of individual environmental risk assessment and management in Industry 4.0 and, more specific, an IoT based model. The paper is very well-written and has the style and language demanded for a potential publication. Some clarifications should be made, along with some corrections here and there, but I believe that the paper will be ready for publication upon the conduction of the aforementioned corrections. The list of references would be nice to be expanded, since they seem to be few in quantity.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. New references were added in Introduction.
My points are analytically listed below
Points for consideration:
Point 1: why do authors write down the word “occupational” with a capital O? Can you clarify why you write it down this way?
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. This was unintentional and in the new version it is corrected.
Point 2: In line 32, you are mentioning a numerical death rate. Judging by the references listed in line 41, I guess that the number is derived from there? It would be better if you inserted the specific relevant reference in line 32.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. A specific reference was added.
Point 3: In lines 45 (or on line 51 if you prefer), please insert the following relevant references about Industry 4.0 and its technologies.
10.1155/2022/5023011
10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004
Point 4: In line 62, please also include the following relevant paper about PPEs made out of 3D Printing, a pillar manufacturing technology of Industry 4.0.
10.1007/s43615-021-00047-8
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The references were added in the paper.
Point 5: Lines 260-264 are truly interesting and show how the system can operate and collect data in a remote way. Authors should write a few lines about their future work, showing their intention to test the device in a factory environment.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. A sentence has been added to the mentioned paragraph.
Point 6: As a more general comment, in the conclusions sections (maybe in the second paragraph of the introduction as well) you should mention the fact that the legislation framework must be optimized as well and should suggest or even oblige the Industry to incorporate such devices in the working areas. Industry 4.0 framework has any such concerns or just provides the physical and digital means to perform this operation? I believe that this would strengthen the article more.
The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. Please see line 505.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I accept this version
