Safety and Health Concerns for the Users of a Playground, Built with Reused Rotor Blades from a Dismantled Wind Turbine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Line 46-47: "Some months later, the 46 caretaker of Wikado, painted the entire playground again." Please provide more details of this event, as this rehabilitation work is essential to the scope of this paper.
- Line 70-77: Please re-write this section in 3rd party sense.
- Figure 3: Please label in the picture, which component of the playground were ,with the re-used rotor blades.
- Figure 4, 5. 6, 7, 9, 10: What causes there deterioration of these materials? Please describe.
- Section 3.2: To be discussed with more scientific basis, instead of using assumptions.
- Line 389-390: "The experts estimated the drops were probably not dangerous for the health of the users, because they were relatively dry and not too sticky or liquid / wet." Were these verified scientifically? Please justify.
- Please convert the Discussion section as the Conclusion.
- The entire paper should be re-written in a 3rd party stance.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comments, which we processed as follows.
Line 46-47: "Some months later, the 46 caretaker of Wikado, painted the entire playground again." Please provide more details of this event, as this rehabilitation work is essential to the scope of this paper.
The authors amended the required information in the introductory part (in 2008 the caretaker painted the entire Wikado before the playground opening; in 2009 he applied an additional layer of paint (Figure 27a, b).
Line 70-77: Please re-write this section in 3rd party sense. The entire paper should be re-written in a 3rd party stance.
The entire paper is now written in a third-party stance.
Figure 3: Please label in the picture, which component of the playground were ,with the re-used rotor blades. Figure 4, 5. 6, 7, 9, 10: What causes there deterioration of these materials? Please describe.
The captions of the figures have been extended, and the contents of the figures are described more in detail.
Section 3.2: To be discussed with more scientific basis, instead of using assumptions. Line 389-390: "The experts estimated the drops were probably not dangerous for the health of the users, because they were relatively dry and not too sticky or liquid / wet." Were these verified scientifically? Please justify.
The authors amended the paper with further description and literature references of the risk assessment models, further explanations of the assumptions derived from literature, improved terminology, information about the collection of the data, additional description of the relation to the guidelines EN and NEN-EN, specification of visual and physical tests on-site such as by touch and cutter, definition of the field of expertise of the actors involved, separation of the assumptions of the authors and the other professionals.
Please convert the Discussion section as the Conclusion.
We already considered doing it before submitting the paper, so we have adopted your suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the research is interesting and novel, and I think can begin to open the conversation around health and materials for wider discussion. I am hesitant about the rigor of the methodology, which I believe should be framed as a case study; no specific methodology is noted or claimed. There is no protocol given for the site visits to speak to the rigor of the data collection or assessment. There is also no direct discussion of validity standards, or quality standards, of the given methodology other than the use of "experts." Shoring up each of these points would make the work much stronger. I also am curious about the time between the observations/research and the publication. Data was collected in 2011 and now it's getting published 9 years later? That alone seems suspect.
Additionally, some of the verbiage used makes the science a bit softer and questionable, such as "should be" on lines 114 and 115; this could be directly related back to the NEN-EN guideline to make it stronger. Other things such as "with the potential to cut" on line 152 makes me ask wonder who defines that potential. Similarly, "in my opinion" on line 316, or the use of "probably" on lines 414 and 433, are not very scientific and undermines findings.
Ultimately, I think the should be framed as a more rigorous case study, or a theoretical exploration highlighting the Risk Assessment models developed. I think it could actually facilitate two articles.
Author Response
The topic of the research is interesting and novel, and I think can begin to open the conversation around health and materials for wider discussion. I am hesitant about the rigor of the methodology, which I believe should be framed as a case study; no specific methodology is noted or claimed. There is no protocol given for the site visits to speak to the rigor of the data collection or assessment. There is also no direct discussion of validity standards, or quality standards, of the given methodology other than the use of "experts." Shoring up each of these points would make the work much stronger. I also am curious about the time between the observations/research and the publication. Data was collected in 2011 and now it's getting published 9 years later? That alone seems suspect. Additionally, some of the verbiage used makes the science a bit softer and questionable, such as "should be" on lines 114 and 115; this could be directly related back to the NEN-EN guideline to make it stronger. Other things such as "with the potential to cut" on line 152 makes me ask wonder who defines that potential. Similarly, "in my opinion" on line 316, or the use of "probably" on lines 414 and 433, are not very scientific and undermines findings. Ultimately, I think the should be framed as a more rigorous case study, or a theoretical exploration highlighting the Risk Assessment models developed. I think it could actually facilitate two articles.
The authors are grateful for the comments of the reviewer. We are happy that even if the research refers to a case study from the beginning of the 2010s, the reviewer still considers it interesting and novel. We also believe the paper can contribute to opening the conversation around health and materials for wider discussion.
Therefore, the authors opted to amend the paper with further description and literature references of the risk assessment models, further explanations of the assumptions derived from literature, improved terminology, information about the collection of the data, additional description of the relation to the guidelines EN and NEN-EN, specification of visual and physical tests on-site such as by touch and cutter, definition of the field of expertise of the actors involved, separation of the assumptions of the authors and the other professionals.
The paper will be published some years after the data were collected, mainly because, at the time, the main author was less involved in academic research, and he acquired the relevant research experience (including a Ph.D.) in recent years.
Reviewer 3 Report
A very good paper in the framework of Circular Economy.
Well written and well done
Author Response
A very good paper in the framework of Circular Economy. Well written and well done.
The authors would like to thank reviewer 3 for the comments.
