What Is the Current Ergonomic Condition of Chainsaws in Non-Professional Use? A Case Study to Determine Vibrations and Noises in Small-Scale Agroforestry Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Thank you for considering suggestions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,
we are pleased to have satisfied your requests. Thank you.

Best regards,
The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Trees felling - just felling

As a consequence, farmers can be exposed to vibration and noise risk even if salutary by pushing the chainsaw to the limit and its application presents a risk to workers safety and health. - modify this sentence

 UE Directive 2003/10/EC -   EU Directive 2003/10/EC

rpm - RPM

To identify and explain the sources of variation in i) vibration total value (ahv) and in ii) - address this sentence

significative - significant

When claiming something is significant always report p-value

Anyway, the differences considering the type of wood used result slightly not significative - address this sentence

The effect is clear for chainsaw model and for the accelerometer position (rear of front) (Figure 3-a), while wood density is slight significant - address this sentence

In fact, the chainsaws F and I (2.3 – 2.1 kW) - it is not clear which chainsaw is 2.3, and which 2.1 kW, I suggest using coma (,) instead of dash (-)

wood log - just log

the data obtained confirm previous but few studies that have examined used chainsaws many years after their first use - address this sentence

forest sectors - forestry sectors

all agroforestry farms in winch the use of chainsaw is low frequent - which

 

English language should be improved, and proofreading is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

Thank you for your suggestions and comments. We accepted them all and modified the manuscript to improve its quality and readability.

Trees felling - just felling

We have corrected the error.

As a consequence, farmers can be exposed to vibration and noise risk even if salutary by pushing the chainsaw to the limit and its application presents a risk to workers safety and health. - modify this sentence

We have modified the sentence.

 UE Directive 2003/10/EC -   EU Directive 2003/10/EC

We have corrected the typing error.

rpm – RPM

We have corrected the error.

To identify and explain the sources of variation in i) vibration total value (ahv) and in ii) - address this sentence

We have added the equation linked to it.

significative – significant

We have corrected the error.

When claiming something is significant always report p-value

We have added the lacking information.

Anyway, the differences considering the type of wood used result slightly not significative - address this sentence

We have added the lacking information.

The effect is clear for chainsaw model and for the accelerometer position (rear of front) (Figure 3-a), while wood density is slight significant - address this sentence

We have added the lacking information.

In fact, the chainsaws F and I (2.3 – 2.1 kW) - it is not clear which chainsaw is 2.3, and which 2.1 kW, I suggest using coma (,) instead of dash (-)

We have corrected the error.

wood log - just log

We have corrected the error.

the data obtained confirm previous but few studies that have examined used chainsaws many years after their first use - address this sentence

We have added the lacking references.

forest sectors - forestry sectors

We have corrected the error.

all agroforestry farms in winch the use of chainsaw is low frequent – which

We have corrected the typing error.

English language should be improved, and proofreading is required.

We have improved the English language.

 

Kind regards,

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

 

The paper is on an important topic. Although chainsaw has been examined in forestry content, this is not the case for agroforestry.

The lack of line numbering is making the review process much more difficult.

A major weakness of the paper is the language used. Some points are difficult to fully understand, such as:

“The aim of this paper is to evaluate the operator exposure to noise and hand-arm
vibrations due to as usual condition use of chainsaw in agroforestry system during different rpm rates and according to softwood and hardwood.”

Materials and methods: “the field test was free from external artificial noises” Please be more elaborate on what measures you have taken to get to this point.

“The crosscut was repeated 3 times for both handles (front and rear) for each chainsaw (H) and for 3 different rpm rates (EP)”. Would you like to add something more on this point? How did you manage to define the three different rpm rates?

Please consider including two photos of the mounting points (with mounting mechanism) on the chainsaw. Might prove interesting for other colleagues and attract more citations of your work.

The use of SW and HW might be confusing (althouth it is explained in text by the authors). Please consider the more straight forward approach of using “Pine” instead of SW and “Beech instead of HW” (but, firstly denote the exact Pine and Beech species.

In Figure 3 (a very nicely prepared and informative one), please add what (A-I) stand for (chainsaw models).

Tables 3 and 4: Is there a way (test) to suggest if some values are statistically higher than others? If so, please add. Furthermore, you could also bold (and explain) values of special interest.

The Discussion and Conclusions sections have to be rewritten; Conclusions’ section is too long and some parts of it could be included in the Discussion. Also, it is not common to include references in the Conslusions rather the main results and recommendations for the future. Finally, try to split the long paragraphs into smaller ones (both in Discussion and Conclusions).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have appreciated your effort and support in enriching the manuscript.

The paper is on an important topic. Although chainsaw has been examined in forestry content, this is not the case for agroforestry.

The lack of line numbering is making the review process much more difficult.

A major weakness of the paper is the language used. Some points are difficult to fully understand, such as:

“The aim of this paper is to evaluate the operator exposure to noise and hand-arm
vibrations due to as usual condition use of chainsaw in agroforestry system during different rpm rates and according to softwood and hardwood.”

Response: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the noise and hand-arm vibration levels to which a chainsaw operator is subjected in an agroforestry system. these levels have been evaluated in i) different rpm of the chainsaw ii) different types of wood (beech and pine)

Materials and methods: “the field test was free from external artificial noises” Please be more elaborate on what measures you have taken to get to this point.

Response: during the tests we made sure that no noises are produced that could have polluted the tests, circumscribing the area and making it inaccessible to unauthorized personnel

“The crosscut was repeated 3 times for both handles (front and rear) for each chainsaw (H) and for 3 different rpm rates (EP)”. Would you like to add something more on this point? How did you manage to define the three different rpm rates?

Response: the RPM conditions described mean:

Minimum engine power = engine running without acceleration and without cuts

Maximum engine power = engine running with maximum acceleration without cuts

cross-cutting speed = engine on maximum acceleration during cutting.

Please consider including two photos of the mounting points (with mounting mechanism) on the chainsaw. Might prove interesting for other colleagues and attract more citations of your work.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The authors have included a new figure (Figure 2) where that shows the position of accelerometers on the chainsaw.

The use of SW and HW might be confusing (althouth it is explained in text by the authors). Please consider the more straight forward approach of using “Pine” instead of SW and “Beech instead of HW” (but, firstly denote the exact Pine and Beech species.

Response: The classification in the two types of wood (SW and HW) is performed only in the tables for graphic reasons, where, however, there is a note describing the acronyms. The authors further clarified the distinction between shortwood and hardwood in the materials and methods section by specifying which species were chosen for each category.

In Figure 3 (a very nicely prepared and informative one), please add what (A-I) stand for (chainsaw models).

Response: Thank you. The authors have added the lacking information in the figure caption.

Tables 3 and 4: Is there a way (test) to suggest if some values are statistically higher than others? If so, please add. Furthermore, you could also bold (and explain) values of special interest.

Response: The authors have added the lacking information.

The Discussion and Conclusions sections have to be rewritten; Conclusions’ section is too long and some parts of it could be included in the Discussion. Also, it is not common to include references in the Conslusions rather the main results and recommendations for the future. Finally, try to split the long paragraphs into smaller ones (both in Discussion and Conclusions).

Response: The authors have modified Discussion and Conclusion sections.

The authors also have improved the English language.

 

Kind regards,

The Authors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have tried to address the reviewer's comments but some more work has to be done:

The presentation of the Tukey test have to be improved. Its is strongly suggested that this information (groupings) is included in the respective tables rather than described in text.

Despite the fact that the text has been changed, linguistic improvement is necessary.

Minor typos/mistakes can be found in text (e.g. et al. with no comma)

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

Thank you for your suggestions and comments. We accepted them all and modified the manuscript to improve its quality and readability.

Kind regards,

The Authors

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please consider comments/ suggestions:

Page 1:

-        …the purpose of the work was to test hand-arm vibrations with a controlled test and the noise …: in the paper also other analysis are discussed

-        … In fact, when transversely sawing softwood the vibration levels were lower than in the hardwood test….: Please be more specific and include acceptable limits of exposure as well as protective measures where necessary.

Page 3:

-        …The aims of the work were to determine by a controlled test the hand-arm vibrations and the noise to which self-employed agroforest owners are subjected with the use of these chainsaws…: In the paper also impact of wood type was analyzed. Please also consider setting up one or more scientific hypothesis related to noise and vibration exposure, type of wood, etc. with undoubtful answers in discussion and conclusion section.

-        …the purpose of this study has been to determine noise and vibration exposure in the typical using of a chainsaw..: Typical using is probably not use of chainsaws under controlled conditions.

 

Page 4

-        … Id * W * H * EP * T : suggestion N = ld etc., asterisk is not a symbol for multiplication

Page 5:

-        …vibration exposure was been expressed…: check English

-        …8-h energy-equivalent…: is this real situation - 8 hours daily?

Page 9:

-        … exceeded the 80 dB(A) minimum action level…: as stated it refers to 8-hour working day

-        … correct application of PPE during this use…: please specify what PPE should be used. Also consider what PPE and organizational measures should be taken where 85dB(A) and higher exposure is reached

-        … four, six and eight hours on basis the information given from the owners…: should be defined and explained in methods. Also consider if operators are exposed 4, 6 or 8 hours on a daily basis or occasionally during the year - additional information related to working days/ hours per year for each operator would be welcome.

Page 11

-        Discussion: Please add comparison of results to characteristics of chainsaws given in Table 1.

Page 12:

-        …winch…: winch – which?

-        … their occasional use…: is this maybe the case of agroforestry use presented in the paper? Small scale forestry, small farms?

-        … In further research, it would be interesting to repeat the experiment in other work phases…: please consider use of real time study. probably productive, effective time etc. are different comparing to professional workers. Also required time for operations when full power of chainsaw is required differs between softwood and hardwood. Also method of logging is a factor of noise and vibration exposure. In this context also methods of skidding should be involved (probably skidding operation is done by adopted agricultural tractor). Also amount of harvested wood per year is necessary information for evaluation of exposure to noise and vibration in this context.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have appreciated your effort and support in enriching the manuscript.

The authors have answered all the questions/suggestions/doubts:

Page 1:

- …the purpose of the work was to test hand-arm vibrations with a controlled test and the noise …: in the paper also other analysis are discussed

Thanks for your comment. We have added the other discussed objectives.

- … In fact, when transversely sawing softwood the vibration levels were lower than in the hardwood test….: Please be more specific and include acceptable limits of exposure as well as protective measures where necessary.

Thanks, we have appreciated your comment, and you can find the information you asked for in the manuscript. The limits of exposure are specified in accordance with Directive 2002/44/EC, and we have included some information about protective measures.

Page 3:

- …The aims of the work were to determine by a controlled test the hand-arm vibrations and the noise to which self-employed agroforest owners are subjected with the use of these chainsaws…: In the paper also impact of wood type was analyzed. Please also consider setting up one or more scientific hypothesis related to noise and vibration exposure, type of wood, etc. with undoubtful answers in discussion and conclusion section.

We have added the missing information. Thanks.

- …the purpose of this study has been to determine noise and vibration exposure in the typical using of a chainsaw.: Typical using is probably not use of chainsaws under controlled conditions.

We have specified what we meant by controlled conditions.

Page 4

- … Id * W * H * EP * T : suggestion N = ld etc., asterisk is not a symbol for multiplication

Thank you for your comment. We have modified the formula as you suggested.

Page 5:

- …vibration exposure was been expressed…: check English

 We have modified the text.

…8-h energy-equivalent…: is this real situation - 8 hours daily?

Thanks for your question. The working days for each company are very variable according to the business needs there is no annual standard of working days / hours, for this reason it was decided to normalize the data in 3 reference periods: 4, 6 and 8 working hours.

Page 9:

- … exceeded the 80 dB(A) minimum action level…: as stated it refers to 8-hour working day

Yes, the authors have considered the lower exposure action level in accordance with European Directive 2003/10/EC.

- … correct application of PPE during this use…: please specify what PPE should be used. Also consider what PPE and organizational measures should be taken where 85dB(A) and higher exposure is reached

We have added what you suggested.

- … four, six and eight hours on basis the information given from the owners…: should be defined and explained in methods. Also consider if operators are exposed 4, 6 or 8 hours on a daily basis or occasionally during the year - additional information related to working days/ hours per year for each operator would be welcome.

The suggested changes were applied to the manuscript. As explained in the previous comment, the working days for each company are very variable according to the business needs there is no annual standard of working days / hours, for this reason it was decided to normalize the data in 3 reference periods: 4, 6 and 8 working hours.

Page 11

- Discussion: Please add comparison of results to characteristics of chainsaws given in Table 1.

Thanks for the comment. The characteristics described in Table 1 were discussed and compared in the discussion section, highlighting their effects on the analized factors.

Page 12:

- …winch…: winch – which?

Thanks, we have corrected the typing error.

- … their occasional use…: is this maybe the case of agroforestry use presented in the paper? Small scale forestry, small farms?

We have added the lack information: “in small-scale agroforestry practices”

- … In further research, it would be interesting to repeat the experiment in other work phases…: please consider use of real time study. probably productive, effective time etc. are different comparing to professional workers. Also required time for operations when full power of chainsaw is required differs between softwood and hardwood. Also method of logging is a factor of noise and vibration exposure. In this context also methods of skidding should be involved (probably skidding operation is done by adopted agricultural tractor). Also amount of harvested wood per year is necessary information for evaluation of exposure to noise and vibration in this context.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of this paper was presented on FORMEC 2019, and I remember having the same doubts then as now.

The effects of accelerometer position (front-rear handle), wood density, and years in use were already published and described.

The chainsaw model is also a crucial factor, a sample of 9 different chainsaws can not properly support your claims and conclusions about the impact of years in use on vibration levels. For the sake of research design, in lack of better options, it would be more suitable to have 9 of the same chainsaws with different total working hours (years in use).

The claimed vibration exposures have no support in any kind of time study. A(4) value of 4.7 m/s2 would mean that the worker is doing only crosscuts for 4 hours a day which is highly unlikely. The same applies to noise exposure. Knowing a typical (or average) day in agroforestry, its working operations, and their duration is a bigger question if you want to claim any kind of exposure.

My opinion is that this paper is not suitable for a top-tier Q1 journal.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments on the manuscript. The authors have considered your suggestions. Best regards