A Systematic Review of Real-Time Monitoring Technologies and Its Potential Application to Reduce Food Loss and Waste: Key Elements of Food Supply Chains and IoT Technologies
, James Gillespie 2, Xavier Cama-Moncunill 1, Shane Ward 1, Joan Condell 2, Ramakrishnan Ramanathan 3 and Fionnuala Murphy 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper gives a review of real-time monitoring technologies and its potential application to reduce food loss and waste (FLW). This review examines two aspects of the field, namely, the type of IoT technologies applied and the characteristics of the supply chains in which it has been deployed. This article shows that, while due to their high perishability and short shelf lives, monitoring fruit and vegetables using a combination of temperature and humidity sensors is the most recurring goal of the research, there are many other applications and technologies being explored in the research space for the reduction of food waste.
The authors select articles via the Web of Science search engine (https://www.webofscience.com/). The combined search terms “food waste” or “food loss” and “dynamic” or “real-time” or “IoT” and “sensor” on titles, abstracts, and keywords, were considered.
To understand the common characteristics of the food supply chain in which real-time monitoring technologies have been applied, food type, supply chain stage, and country were checked for each identified study and defined in Table 1.
The authors also provide an overview of the current state of real-time sensor applications to mitigate FLW in the different stages of the food supply chain, i.e. production, manufacturing, storage, transportation, and retail, worldwide.
The research has also shown that current sensing technologies seem to be predominantly focused on temperature and humidity, followed by gas composition/concentration and light intensity.
The references should be updated with the most recent in your paper's research field of relevance. I recommend the authors to consult the following survey and empirical papers to contextualize your findings. This should help the readers to understand the novelty of your work.
Reliability of a distributed data storage system considering the external impacts, IEEE Transactions on Reliability (2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2022.3161638/
Exploring biometric identification in FinTech applications based on the modified TAM. Financ Innov 7, 42 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-021-00260-2
Reliability of a distributed computing system with performance sharing, IEEE Transactions on Reliability (2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2021.3111031
Optimal inspection policy for a three-stage system considering production wait time, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, (2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2022.3200126
Overall, the findings demonstrated this technology's enormous promise and successful applications. So, I recommend that this paper should be accepted.
Author Response
Reviewer one
*This paper gives a review of real-time monitoring technologies and its potential application to reduce food loss and waste (FLW). This review examines two aspects of the field, namely, the type of IoT technologies applied and the characteristics of the supply chains in which it has been deployed. This article shows that, while due to their high perishability and short shelf lives, monitoring fruit and vegetables using a combination of temperature and humidity sensors is the most recurring goal of the research, there are many other applications and technologies being explored in the research space for the reduction of food waste.
*The authors select articles via the Web of Science search engine (https://www.webofscience.com/). The combined search terms “food waste” or “food loss” and “dynamic” or “real-time” or “IoT” and “sensor” on titles, abstracts, and keywords, were considered.
*To understand the common characteristics of the food supply chain in which real-time monitoring technologies have been applied, food type, supply chain stage, and country were checked for each identified study and defined in Table 1.
*The authors also provide an overview of the current state of real-time sensor applications to mitigate FLW in the different stages of the food supply chain, i.e. production, manufacturing, storage, transportation, and retail, worldwide.
*The research has also shown that current sensing technologies seem to be predominantly focused on temperature and humidity, followed by gas composition/concentration and light intensity.
*The references should be updated with the most recent in your paper's research field of relevance.
Author response: The article screening process for this article began in February 2021 which allowed for all papers published in 2021 to be indexed by Web of Science (WoS) as per information provided by the WoS website: once the issue is published in print (FIN) it will reach Web of Science within 4-8 weeks. Web of Science adds them in batches.
In order for the review to remain accurate at reporting field trends (as per figure 2), the authors believe it is representative to report on the research space only after the full year has been indexed. Hence, the review’s inclusion criteria is 2021. This is not uncommon in review articles. In fact, a recent publication by Lamberty and Kreyenschmidt [1] in 2022 only covers papers until 2020. We therefore believe that even though the search criteria only includes papers published until 2021, the paper adds significant knowledge to the research area.
[1] 10.3390/foods11121777
I recommend the authors to consult the following survey and empirical papers to contextualize your findings. This should help the readers to understand the novelty of your work.
Reliability of a distributed data storage system considering the external impacts, IEEE Transactions on Reliability (2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2022.3161638/
Exploring biometric identification in FinTech applications based on the modified TAM. Financ Innov 7, 42 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-021-00260-2
Reliability of a distributed computing system with performance sharing, IEEE Transactions on Reliability (2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2021.3111031
Optimal inspection policy for a three-stage system considering production wait time, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, (2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2022.3200126
Overall, the findings demonstrated this technology's enormous promise and successful applications. So, I recommend that this paper should be accepted.
Author response: Thank you for your recommendation. The revised version of the manuscript was improved and the authors believe the findings in this version are better contextualized.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “A systematic review of real-time monitoring technologies and its potential application to reduce food loss and waste: key elements of food supply chains and IoT technologies”, submitted for publication to Sustainability. The research deals with a topical concern, namely the continuous monitoring of food loss and waste for improving food security and for mitigating climate change. The research reviews, through a systematic approach, 59 published studies on the sensor technologies to reduce food waste in food supply chains. The research is interesting and original, and the authors have adopted a systematic approach. I have really appreciated the research, I only have some minor concerns related to the manuscript.
General comment: Please, revise the section related to “affiliations” (lines 7-8).
Introduction: Lines 37-44 could be strengthened by adding some figures and statistics related to food loss and waste, such as the financial costs (lines 41-42) or the environmental consequences (lines 39-40). It is clear that food loss and waste represents a socio-economic and environmental challenge, but some more details can help readers understand the theoretical background of the research. Please, consider the subsequent published article:
Amicarelli, V., Lagioia, G. and Bux, C. (2021). Global warming potential of food waste through the life cycle assessment: An analytical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91 (2021), 106677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106677
In the field of the application of the IoT technologies in the agri-food (lines 42-66), please consider adding a brief recall to the blockchain technology, which could actually improve food loss and waste measurement and enhance industrial symbiosis among companies, hence reducing their amount and improving both the economic and the environmental sustainability. Here some useful references:
Rana, R.L., Tricase, C., De Cesare, L. (2021). Blockchain technology for a sustainable agri-food supply chain. British Food Journal, 2021, 123, 3471–3485.
Bux, C., Varese, E., Amicarelli, V., Lombardi, M. (2022). Halal Food Sustainability between Certification and Blockchain: A Review. Sustainability, 14(4), 2152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042152
Materials and methods:
Line 102. Should it be “2.1. IoT architecture”?
Line 133-134. ”Methodology – Systematic Literature Review of the applications of IoT Sensor technology applied for reducing FLW” should be a sub-section of the section “Materials and methods”, or not? Please, revise.
Why the research questions presented at lines 96-99 (i.e., what are the main characteristics of the food supply chain in which food monitoring technologies are necessary? and to what extent real-time monitoring technologies, in particular IoT sensors, have been employed in food supply chains?) are different from the research questions presented at lines 137-139 (i.e., what are the aspects of the food supply chain that has used food monitoring technologies? and to what degree have real-time monitoring technologies, particularly IoT sensors, been used in food supply chains?). Please, use the same research questions to avoid confusion among readers.
Does Figure 2 recalls the PRISMA guideline? https://prisma-statement.org
Lines188-189. Here the issue related to the publication timeline is repeated. The authors have already declared it at line 141.
Could you please provide some more details related to the “non-systematic way to identify additional studies”?
Lines 194-196. The VOSviewer analysis represents a “Data analysis” process. Please, add some more details related to the analysis and to the software used. Consider the subsequent articles, which have applied a similar approach.
Rana, R.L., Bux, C. and Lombardi, M. (2022). Trends in scientific literature on the environmental sustainability of the artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L. spp.) supply chain. British Food Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2022-0571
Lines 196-230. I would include such lines in the section “Results”.
Results: I would entitle the section “Results and discussion”, since the authors discuss results and provide theoretical and empirical implications.
Considering that the research in-depth analyzes results, I would avoid redundancies and join sub-sections 4.1.1., 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. Also, Figures 5 and 6 could be put together within a single figure, distinguishing between “a” and “b”. Sometimes, it is better to shorten results and make them clearer, getting straight to the point.
Author Response
Reviewer two
Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “A systematic review of real-time monitoring technologies and its potential application to reduce food loss and waste: key elements of food supply chains and IoT technologies”, submitted for publication to Sustainability. The research deals with a topical concern, namely the continuous monitoring of food loss and waste for improving food security and for mitigating climate change. The research reviews, through a systematic approach, 59 published studies on the sensor technologies to reduce food waste in food supply chains. The research is interesting and original, and the authors have adopted a systematic approach. I have really appreciated the research, I only have some minor concerns related to the manuscript.
General comment: Please, revise the section related to “affiliations” (lines 7-8).
Author Response: The template affiliations have been removed.
Introduction: Lines 37-44 could be strengthened by adding some figures and statistics related to food loss and waste, such as the financial costs (lines 41-42) or the environmental consequences (lines 39-40). It is clear that food loss and waste represents a socio-economic and environmental challenge, but some more details can help readers understand the theoretical background of the research. Please, consider the subsequent published article:
Amicarelli, V., Lagioia, G. and Bux, C. (2021). Global warming potential of food waste through the life cycle assessment: An analytical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91 (2021), 106677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106677
Author Response: Statistics have been added to the financial costs and environmental impacts of Food Loss and Waste while making use of the recommended article. Please see lines 39-46.
In the field of the application of the IoT technologies in the agri-food (lines 42-66), please consider adding a brief recall to the blockchain technology, which could actually improve food loss and waste measurement and enhance industrial symbiosis among companies, hence reducing their amount and improving both the economic and the environmental sustainability. Here some useful references:
Rana, R.L., Tricase, C., De Cesare, L. (2021). Blockchain technology for a sustainable agri-food supply chain. British Food Journal, 2021, 123, 3471–3485.
Bux, C., Varese, E., Amicarelli, V., Lombardi, M. (2022). Halal Food Sustainability between Certification and Blockchain: A Review. Sustainability, 14(4), 2152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042152
Author Response: Blockchain technologies were also included in the list of potential technologies to improve food loss and waste in the revised manuscript. Please see lines 62-63.
Materials and methods:
Line 102. Should it be “2.1. IoT architecture”?
Author Response: Correct. The manuscript has been updated to correct this typo. Please see line 160.
Line 133-134. ”Methodology – Systematic Literature Review of the applications of IoT Sensor technology applied for reducing FLW” should be a sub-section of the section “Materials and methods”, or not? Please, revise.
Author Response: Correct. The manuscript has been updated with revised heading and numbering. Please see lines 105-106.
Why the research questions presented at lines 96-99 (i.e., what are the main characteristics of the food supply chain in which food monitoring technologies are necessary? and to what extent real-time monitoring technologies, in particular IoT sensors, have been employed in food supply chains?) are different from the research questions presented at lines 137-139 (i.e., what are the aspects of the food supply chain that has used food monitoring technologies? and to what degree have real-time monitoring technologies, particularly IoT sensors, been used in food supply chains?). Please, use the same research questions to avoid confusion among readers.
Author Response: The research questions have been standardized between the sections. Please see lines 100-103 and 110-113.
Does Figure 2 recalls the PRISMA guideline? https://prisma-statement.org
Author Response: Figure 2 (now Figure 1) was updated according to the PRISMA guidelines for “flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources”.
Lines188-189. Here the issue related to the publication timeline is repeated. The authors have already declared it at line 141.
Author Response: The text “(2001-2021)” was removed from line 141 to avoid repetition. The detailed explanation of the method remains in lines 139-140.
Could you please provide some more details related to the “non-systematic way to identify additional studies”?
Author Response: The “non-systematic way” occurs when the identification of studies is made via other methods than using the “Web of Science search engine” in this case the studies were identified from citation searching from the 45 studies selected in the screening eligibility phase. Please see lines 140-144.
Lines 194-196. The VOSviewer analysis represents a “Data analysis” process. Please, add some more details related to the analysis and to the software used. Consider the subsequent articles, which have applied a similar approach.
Rana, R.L., Bux, C. and Lombardi, M. (2022). Trends in scientific literature on the environmental sustainability of the artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L. spp.) supply chain. British Food Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2022-0571
Author Response: More details were included in the revised version of the manuscript. Please see lines 147-158.
Lines 196-230. I would include such lines in the section “Results”.
Author Response: Thank you for your recommendation. The VOSviewer analysis has been moved to a new introductory section in results entitled “analysis of selected papers”. Please see lines 226-230.
Results: I would entitle the section “Results and discussion”, since the authors discuss results and provide theoretical and empirical implications.
Author Response: Thank you for your recommendation. The section header has been updated as suggested. Please see line 197.
Considering that the research in-depth analyzes results, I would avoid redundancies and join sub-sections 4.1.1., 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. Also, Figures 5 and 6 could be put together within a single figure, distinguishing between “a” and “b”. Sometimes, it is better to shorten results and make them clearer, getting straight to the point.
Author Response: Although the recommendation is appreciated and consideration has been taken to merge the subsections (and figures 5 and 6) together, the authors feel that the current division allows for a clear categorisation of the results. Attempts to merge these categories made the new section, to our understanding, somewhat confusing as it seemed like a long section jumping across different types of results.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper demonstrates the usefulness of applying IoT technology to reduce food losses over time from producer to consumer. Monitoring the conditions of preparation, storage and marketing is a key issue for conducting proper food policy.
A few minor comments:
Figure 1. under Retail at the top of the figure, the word „sensor” was missing.
Figure 3. Figure 3 singles out "fruits," but Table 1 lists fruits and vegetables as the Food type, so maybe you should expand the name in the figure and write "fruits and vegetables."
Line 273. Melons and tomatoes: the edible part is actually fruit, but these species belong to the group of vegetables. They should be considered a vegetable and for this reason the data in Figure 5 should also be corrected.
Line 335 To be precise, the temperature during transport of, for example, cucumber should be 12°C. It seems to me that the text refers to increasing the temperature above the setpoint by 10°C.
Author Response
Reviewer three
This paper demonstrates the usefulness of applying IoT technology to reduce food losses over time from producer to consumer. Monitoring the conditions of preparation, storage and marketing is a key issue for conducting proper food policy.
A few minor comments:
Figure 1. under Retail at the top of the figure, the word „sensor” was missing.
Author Response: The figure has been updated to include the word sensor with each depiction.
Figure 3. Figure 3 singles out "fruits," but Table 1 lists fruits and vegetables as the Food type, so maybe you should expand the name in the figure and write "fruits and vegetables."
Author Response: The figure individually lists fruit and vegetable as two separate categories as there are many itemized fruits and vegetables documented in the reviewed works (banana, apple, sweet cherry, blueberry, blackberry, grapes, pumpkin, orange, peach, citric fruit, grapefruit, mango, garlic scape, lettuce, kimchi, potato, onion, aromatic herbs, tomatoes, melon). However, while some papers listed specific types of fruit or vegetable, others did not provide such granularity and stated that the monitoring application was simply for “fruit and vegetables”, hence this is the level of detail provided in the table for these studies. In the cases where “fruit and vegetables” were stated as the monitoring application, the authors counted one instance of fruit and one instance of vegetable for the calculation of statistics and the figure.
Line 273. Melons and tomatoes: the edible part is actually fruit, but these species belong to the group of vegetables. They should be considered a vegetable and for this reason the data in Figure 5 should also be corrected.
Author Response: The analysis in the text and the figure have been updated to reflect that melons and tomatoes belong to the vegetable group.
Line 335 To be precise, the temperature during transport of, for example, cucumber should be 12°C. It seems to me that the text refers to increasing the temperature above the setpoint by 10°C.
Author Response: For clarity, the text has been updated to the following: “the temperature can temporarily rise by more than 10 °C in the refrigeration units” to make it clear that it is an undesired increase limited to the duration of loading/unloading. Please see lines 338-339.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors, I want to congratulate you for the extensive and detailed review that your manuscript presents, I believe that it will be essential material for review by many researchers. I think it has a lot of potential to be published, but not without first considering the attached observations.
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Section 3 methodology should be in emphasized.
Author Response: The methodology section heading has been put in emphasizes.
Improve the structure of figure 2, it is difficult to understand it
Author Response: Figure 2 (now Figure 1) has been updated as per the PRISMA guidelines to make it more easily understood.
They should highlight the section "4.2.4. Data storage and control".
Author Response: The 4.2.4. section heading has been put in emphasizes.
Very poor description of hardware platforms and sensors cost.
Author Response: While section 3.3.1 does speak to the cost of some of the sensing devices (especially highlighting those which are of low cost), assessing and comparing the overall cost of each of the IoT solutions is outside of the scope of this review. Further, since the IoT solutions presented in each paper tend to be bespoke (lab prototypes, custom boards, etc), it would be incredibly difficult to accurately assess the cost of the developed solutions presented.
Add specifications of the plans of each of the cloud services (Thingspeak, Blink IOT, etc.) and especially of the academic plans
Author Response: Despite the cost of the databases being out of the scope of this paper, some plans were included in the new version of the manuscript. Please see section 3.3.4 (lines 739-747).
Define in which layer (of figure 1) is the mining of data captured by the sensors.
Author Response: figure 1 (now figure 2 after manuscript reorganization) has been updated to show that the mining of data (or analytics as the authors choose to call it) occurs in the application layer. Additional text has been added to the IoT architecture description to reflect this.
Better detail the activities and data mining tasks carried out by researchers.
Author Response: Section 3.3.5 applications and software has been updated to provide an overview of the data mining tasks caried out by the researchers. The section, which previously listed the tools and algorithms used for data mining has been expanded to detail the goal of the data mining which occurred in each research work.
