Evaluating the Performance and Practicality of a Multi-Parameter Assessment System with Design, Comparative Analysis, and Future Directions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study presents an advanced environmental quality assessment system, outlining its hardware, software, and comparison with an existing publicly available system. Although it exhibits larger deviations in PM2.5 and air humidity parameters, the proposed system maintains sufficient accuracy in other environmental aspects. It establishes a standardized operating procedure, assesses uncertainty and quality assurance measures, ensuring the reliability of environmental measurements. The system encompasses a wide range of capabilities, measuring parameters like TVOC, CO2, temperature, humidity, particulate matter, noise, NOx, SOx, O3, and CO, while also offering real-time monitoring functions to detect environmental changes. In essence, this paper contributes significantly to the field of comprehensive environmental quality assessment and management. However, there are notable areas for enhancement:
1. Related works should be structured into subsections based on key themes like Environmental Monitoring, Performance Metrics, and Quality Assurance, elucidating research gaps and motivations clearly.
2. The language style in the related work section requires improvement; for instance, instead of "Zlatev [4] emphasizes," past tense like "Zlatev [4] emphasized" should be used.
3. The Material and Methods section should commence with a flowchart illustrating the overall research methodology steps and details.
4. Apart from formulas 1-4, additional statistical indicators should be incorporated for thorough analysis.
5. Section 4 lacks comparative experiments, i.e., a discussion on how this paper's methods validate their advantages.
6. The quality of figures in this paper needs enhancement, focusing on clarity, standardization, and logical coherence.
7. The overall architecture diagram of the system and detailed UML modeling for design are absent and should be included for completeness.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
We express our gratitude to the editorial and review boards for their assessment of the content presented in our article. Their positive assessment of our research results, along with their advice and recommendations, we agree with the criticisms regarding technical errors, descriptions of the methods and tools, and partial omissions and have corrected the indicated remarks in the editing of this work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
the article describes the important problem of measuring environmental pollution. Currently, the issue of measuring pollution is very topical, so discussion on this topic is particularly necessary. Green policies indicate that one of the challenges that currently must be overcome is reliable measurement of pollution. In this respect, the article is particularly valuable.
I noticed one important limitation in the reviewed text: the lack of a clear description of the methodological side of the study. The authors focused on the technical description of the device. They almost completely omitted the methodology of the presented study. Please complete this part of the article. Without this part, it is difficult to assess whether all elements of the research process have been achieved (as intended).
Additionally, I noticed a few minor mistakes.
1. Line 31. "The relationship between climate change and air and environmental pollution is complex enough. I wonder if "complex enough" was used appropriately." In my opinion, "complex" would be enough.
2. 2. Line 326. "Determining uncertainty and quality assurance". The authors use the category "uncertainty". I'm not sure if it's really about "uncertainty" or if the authors are describing "risk". Risk means a situation in which the decision-maker knows or can estimate the probabilities of various states of affairs, and uncertainty is a situation in which these probabilities are not known or cannot be estimated in an objective way. Please consider this comment and decide.
3. Line 353. In Figure 1, you used colors to define the paths between devices - I wonder if colors matter here. It is worth describing why connections are marked with different colors.
4. Line 525. The Conclusion requires supplementation. Now it's too short. Such an important topic requires a broader summary. The Conclusion lacks the implications of the presented research.
Remove editorial errors (e.g. different fonts, yellow marks).
Kind regards,
Author Response
We express our gratitude to the editorial and review boards for their assessment of the content presented in our article. Their positive assessment of our research results, along with their advice and recommendations, we agree with the criticisms regarding technical errors, descriptions of the methods and tools, and partial omissions and have corrected the indicated remarks in the editing of this work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEvaluating the Performance and Practicality of a Multi-Parameter Assessment System with Design, Comparative Analysis, and Future Directions
Review
This paper proposes a measuring system for various environmental parameters, its hardware, and software. The system can measure parameters like temperature, humidity, noise, CO2, NOx, SOx, O3, CO, with real-time monitoring for detecting environmental changes.
The article is interesting from the applied viewpoint. However, some information and clarifications must be added.
The state of the art must be enriched.
The novelty of the proposed measuring instrument must be clarified.
The abbreviations in the Abstract must be avoided.
A block diagram of the system must be added, with explanations about the role and operation of different components.
The Conclusions must be focused on the results and must show applications of such a measuring instrument.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language must be edited for style and syntax.
Author Response
We express our gratitude to the editorial and review boards for their assessment of the content presented in our article. Their positive assessment of our research results, along with their advice and recommendations, we agree with the criticisms regarding technical errors, descriptions of the methods and tools, and partial omissions and have corrected the indicated remarks in the editing of this work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study developed an environmental quality assessment system, which detailed its hardware, software, and comparative analysis with public systems. The proposed system demonstrated good accuracy in other environmental characteristics. This paper is interesting, but there are some problems with it:
1. The title of this paper is Design, Comparative Analysis, Future Directions, and Evaluation of the Performance and Practicality of Multi parameter Evaluation Systems, but it is not like a technical paper, but rather like a review.
2. The contribution and motivation of this article are unclear.
3. There are some grammar errors and incorrect expressions in the paper.
4. The accuracy, analysis, and reliability of the data collection section of this paper require in-depth verification.
5. The presentation form after data collection is not diverse enough, and the visualization part is also not done enough.
6. The hardware system description section of this paper is not sufficient, reflecting the innovation and superiority of the author's collection performance.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis study developed an environmental quality assessment system, which detailed its hardware, software, and comparative analysis with public systems. The proposed system demonstrated good accuracy in other environmental characteristics. This paper is interesting, but there are some problems with it:
1. The title of this paper is Design, Comparative Analysis, Future Directions, and Evaluation of the Performance and Practicality of Multi parameter Evaluation Systems, but it is not like a technical paper, but rather like a review.
2. The contribution and motivation of this article are unclear.
3. There are some grammar errors and incorrect expressions in the paper.
4. The accuracy, analysis, and reliability of the data collection section of this paper require in-depth verification.
5. The presentation form after data collection is not diverse enough, and the visualization part is also not done enough.
6. The hardware system description section of this paper is not sufficient, reflecting the innovation and superiority of the author's collection performance.
Author Response
We express our gratitude to the editorial and review boards for their assessment of the content presented in our article. Their positive assessment of our research results, along with their advice and recommendations, we agree with the criticisms regarding technical errors, descriptions of the methods and tools, and partial omissions and have corrected the indicated remarks in the editing of this work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form.
Author Response
We thank the editorial and review boards for evaluating our article. We appreciate their positive feedback on our research and have addressed their suggestions, including corrections to technical errors, method descriptions, and omissions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for your correction, I think the manuscript has been significantly improved. The methodology you have added significantly improves understanding of the issues (congratulation).
I accept manuscript in its current form because, in my opinion, the issues are important and the article is well written.
Kind regards,
Author Response
We thank the editorial and review boards for evaluating our article. We appreciate their positive feedback on our research and have addressed their suggestions, including corrections to technical errors, method descriptions, and omissions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can advance for publication.
Author Response
We thank the editorial and review boards for evaluating our article. We appreciate their positive feedback on our research and have addressed their suggestions, including corrections to technical errors, method descriptions, and omissions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author made changes according to the reviewer's requirements, and the reviewer had no other requirements.
There is only one review opinion for the paper; the format and layout of the paper are not very good. Please carefully layout it.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe author made changes according to the reviewer's requirements, and the reviewer had no other requirements.
There is only one review opinion for the paper; the format and layout of the paper are not very good. Please carefully layout it.
Author Response
We thank the editorial and review boards for evaluating our article. We appreciate their positive feedback on our research and have addressed their suggestions, including corrections to technical errors, method descriptions, and omissions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
