Model Assessment of the Complex Workload of Harvester Operator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have taken into account all my specific comments. Unfortunately, they did not resolve my doubts about the assumptions and methodological side of the work. In my opinion, the "the complex workload" used in the title, is unauthorized.
Author Response
The authors have taken into account all my specific comments. Unfortunately, they did not resolve my doubts about the assumptions and methodological side of the work. In my opinion, the "the complex workload" used in the title, is unauthorized.
In our work, we tried to assess the mutual interaction of risk factors affecting the work position (in our case, harvester operator). The goal was to find a certain mathematical dependence, with the help of which it would be possible to describe the risk of work in case the risk factors are satisfactory. However, their mutual interaction can lead to the fact that the work will be risky for the worker. For this reason, we chose the term "the complex workload" in the title. Complex assessment is quite complicated and currently, as we mentioned, partial assessment of risks at work is still prevalent. In our work, we tried to indicate a possible direction of complex risk assessment in the work environment. There are certainly a lot of questions that we would like to deal with in the future. At the same time, we open the door to researchers in the given field who could build on our achieved results.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your efforts.
1. Your study is conducted in a laboratory setting. And you collect the data about noise to evaluate the work risk. But, in m opinion, it is difficult to make the similar outside environment conditions in laboratory. Did you have any result to compare the noise between laboratiry and ouside convironment conditions? If not, why did you observed the noise, please explain.
2. Please explain why did you select harvester operator in thinning operations.
3. In my opinion, the harvester operator trainning can be useful technology. But the measuring workload with simator may not be cover the outside environment conditions. Please write this issue with defence clearly.
Author Response
- Before the simulation itself, we made a screening of the measurement in the outdoor environment, on the basis of which we based the noise simulation in laboratory conditions.
- The choice of work was limited by the capabilities of the simulator. On the harvester simulator, it is best to try out similar work in the terrain, precisely when setting the same conditions as the work in thinning operations. This fact was offered by the software of the harvester simulator.
- We agree with this fact. During training on the harvester simulator, it is possible to simulate various risky situations already during the training and prepare the operator for operation. Of course, the training itself in operating conditions in the terrain cannot replace it, but it can simulate the conditions affecting the well-being of the operator.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your responses.
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
Some editing for the English language is required throughout the manuscript due to many mistakes. Writing needs improvements (for example, personal pronouns is not used in academic writing). The advice is to consult the native English speaker.
The literature is mostly grouped in one part of the introduction, as well as in some other parts of the paper. Indicate the literature for other parts of the introduction. Along with the citation, state the subject of the citation in the entire text (for example, row 110 – which standard? row 114 - which “microclimate conditions”, etc.). The conclusion is too extensive, it is necessary to concretize it (applied method, results).
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper concerns a very important issue of comprehensively assess the workload of the workstation. This is an interesting attempt to use mathematical methods to evaluate workload, in this case for a harvester operator position.
General comments:
The paper requires revision and corrections to improve the overall readability. After reading the text, it turned out that a complex workload assessment is limited to measuring several risk factors occurring at the position of the harvester operator: noise, microclimate (the authors do not specify which parameters of microclimate, but from the rest of the paper it appears that it is a measurement of temperature), mental stress and heart rate, as the dependent variable is the basis of the whole model. Postural load, repetitive work, whole body and hand-arm vibrations, mechanical factors, which are important at this workstation were not considered. Hence my doubts about the validity of "complex workload" in the title of the paper.
The authors conducted laboratory tests on a simulator (model not given). This is a convenient solution to control many variable factors that in real work conditions are often beyond our control. However, in the assessment of many risk factors real measurement is necessary. I have doubts about noise measurement in simulation conditions. How and what noise was measured in this experiment.
Specific comments:
L. 33 – Author [1] - I suggest that you insert the name, because it suggests that this is the paper of the author of the manuscript. The same L. 292, 305, 308, 309.
L. 33-41 - This is a well-known fact, described in many studies. I think that relying on widely known publications will be a better basis for introducing a research topic than using unpublished study.
L. 54 - I suggest adding "e.g." in the enumeration of articles on partial and complex risk factors exposure assessment. The selection of these literature items limited to the circle of authors is puzzling. Given the wide availability of research results, I suggest a greater diversity of cited papers.
L. 81-84 – “proband” - I suggest replacing this term with participants or research group.
L. 134-135 - A description of the procedure for measuring heart rate is essential at this point.
L. 205-14 - This is a repetition of research methods.
L. 292-96 - This passage is unclear - what quote [37] is referring to. Needs to be reworded.
L. 303-04 - Listing publications in a discussion adds nothing to it. So does listing a number of your own publications. It is necessary to compare methods and results used or at least highlight the most important differences or similarities.
L. 305-10 - Enumeration of publications without reference to the authors' research findings. Requires rephrasing.
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate the authors' effort to write the research paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
