Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- The quality of Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 is very low

2- Provide scientific and authoritative references Electromagnetic spectrum (Fig. 6), also for figures 4 and 5

 

3- Create the “Results” section. The results and discussions are poor.

4- The introduction must be improved and Contributions should be presented clearly. 

There are some grammar mistakes. Read the paper carefully and correct them

Author Response

Respected reviewers

 Firstly, I would like to thank you for your reviews, which have helped us significantly improve and expand our manuscript.

Secondly, I would like to inform you that one author had already dropped out of the research due to his privacy and family obligations.

Now there are three authors in the paper in the following order: Slađana Pantelić, Branisklav Vulević, and Saša Milić.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Branislav Vulević

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1.     General

 

The manuscript is acceptable for the journal. It is formatted and prepared in the context of scientific works.  

 

2.     Language

 

The paper readability and flow is good and clear. And it needs minor editing works for the best of the paper and the journal quality in general.  

 

3.      Technicality

 

The abstract of the paper is completed, and formulated in a clear sequence. In the introduction part, flow and contents seems well, but the focus of the research issue is very shallow. It needs more elaborated articulations. The first two paragraphs about the rationale and the others the state of the arts. Why this research needed, how it will address and what will be the expected outcomes did not present clearly.  It needs more focused and defined articulation about the research work. The literature part a bit wide with long paragraphs but also it needs more synthesize) presentation than putting the general truth or classic sciences. It needs consultation of more and recent related papers that has been done before. In addition, conceptual comparative analysis or comparison is needed to improve the paper quality.

 

Section three or the methods is shallow and the proposed model flow chart and components are designed wrongly, or it needs remarkable modification.  How the data are prepared, which features are selected, how, and why, did not clearly presented? so it needs more focus and remarkable changes. This section, tools and techniques should present clearly.

 

Section four and five looks good, however, the conclusion part is not presented as the research flow and contents., so please it needs more articulation in a consistent flow. The conclusion part seems incomplete and did not show the research outcome as the why, the how and the what? It tells about the general truth and complaints.

 

4.     Conclusion and recommendation

 

The paper and its focusing seems good and fit to the journal. However, it needs a remarkable modification or editing. Therefore, I recommend for the publication of the paper after its modification.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

1.     Language

 

The paper readability and flow is good and clear. And it needs minor editing works for the best of the paper and the journal quality in general.  

Author Response

Respected reviewers

 Firstly, I would like to thank you for your reviews, which have helped us significantly improve and expand our manuscript.

Secondly, I would like to inform you that one author had already dropped out of the research due to his privacy and family obligations.

Now there are three authors in the paper in the following order: Slađana Pantelić, Branisklav Vulević, and Saša Milić.

Thank you for your time and effort.

 Sincerely,

Branislav Vulević

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Overall, the proposed method seems good but it requires some significant improvements and clarifications to get it accepted.

1. As a concern of contradictory expert views on the level of impact that are unknown sources of emission, proximal objects, etc. It is repeatedly striking in metrology that the final assessments and recommendations on health risks based on EMF measurements in real-life conditions differ. So, please discuss the assessment of input measurements and the decision-making process impact that can affect at least two phases of the fuzzy algorithm:

(a):- The fuzzification phase: where the membership function of the input measurement data is also a fuzzy number i.e., a scenario where the experts disagree on measured values and measurement conditions. For instance, the impact of the unknown EMF sources, spatial allocation of measurement points, number of unknown EMF sources, the impact of proximal objects, weather conditions, etc.

(b):- The inference phase: in which the membership function of fuzzy numbers that represent decision-making is also a fuzzy number.

2. Discuss the norms that were used to develop the fuzzy model for automated decisions related to electromagnetic measurements.

 

3. Discuss the results of the application of FLS when the input parameters contain uncertainties resulting from an expert's disagreement about the assessment of the hazard and the health risk assessment, in relation to the exposure time.

 

4. Discuss the cases where it is necessary to use Type-1/2 fuzzy sets and their corresponding membership functions with respect to the proposed fuzzy measurement algorithm.

5. Figure 1: "Reference levels with a shaded 5G high-frequency range" is not cleared. Figure 4. "Beamforming techniques for avoiding obstacles using a bunch of low-power pole transceivers and wall transceivers" is not cleared.

6. It is suggested to increase the fuzzy intervals frequency in "Table 1. Membership Functions".

 

 

The quality of the English language is overall good. 

Author Response

Respected reviewers

 Firstly, I would like to thank you for your reviews, which have helped us significantly improve and expand our manuscript.

Secondly, I would like to inform you that one author had already dropped out of the research due to his privacy and family obligations.

Now there are three authors in the paper in the following order: Slađana Pantelić, Branisklav Vulević, and Saša Milić.

Thank you for your time and effort.

 Sincerely,

Branislav Vulević

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Fuzzy-decision Algorithm for Health Impact Assessment in 5G Environment

Journal: Applied Sciences

Date: 20230424

 

The authors present a relatively brief but interesting update on their previous fuzzy logic-based risk assessment methodology published in Nuclear Technology and Radiation Protection in 2019, now specifically treating risks to health of 5G, and reflecting recent changes in guidelines.

General comments

I would recommend the authors to seek English language editing prior to submission to a journal. Although the quality of English is reasonably high, there are some limitations to the current manuscript including, for example, confusing omissions/mistreatments of definite and indefinite articles throughout, which makes reading a little tiring, and several omitted words or muddled sentences, which obscure the intended meaning of the authors. Even in the first line (!) of the abstract there are mistakes that make understanding difficult: “The mass use of mobile phones and other wireless communication devices causes apprehensive of the negative impact of non-ionizing radiation on human health.” (my bold)

Section by section:

1 Introduction

The Introduction section is rather vaguely written. It is unclear throughout whether the authors are specifically interested in health risks, in biological effects, or perhaps some other impacts on humans. The aims should be specified more clearly with appropriate language. A whole paragraph is devoted to explaining what the paper will be about. I would recommend removing this whole paragraph and instead replacing with background relating to assessment of health risks relating to the exposures of interest here i.e. 5G.

There is no background presented regarding methodologies used for assessing health risks from EMF, either specifically for 5G or generally for all other EMF. This is lacking and should be provided. It is particularly necessary as it is not clear what “gap” the paper is addressing. If there are uncertainties or knowledge deficits in current EMF-risk assessment methodologies, what do these look like, how do they affect regulation, what are the implications for risk assessors, regulators or other scientists and engineers working in this field, and indeed what are the wider implications to human health and society?

The authors express the aims of the paper in an confused manner which requires rewriting. They state the goals as the goals of the fuzzy model and algorithm. They should instead express what the goals of the research are. The goals listed are threefold: (i) assessment of EMF-related health impacts; (ii) indication of “unexplored adverse health effects”; and (iii) reduction of subjectivity in assessing EMF impact on health. With regards to (i), this should be expressed in much specificity. What kinds of health effects are being assessed, are they authors only interested in developing the algorithm for 5G? (it is not mentioned here), are they talking about exposures from phones, masts, microcells, etc.? With regards to (ii) it is hard to understand what is meant by “indication of unexplored adverse health effects”. What is “indication” in this context? What is meant by unexplored—does it mean something completely novel? Or is this referring to non-thermal effects?

2. Overview of open questions, guidelines, recommendations, and standards

Again the language is rather weak. The first sentence: “In the last three decades, large increase in non-ionizing radiation sources is noticeable.” Apart from grammatical issues, I would ask the authors to consider what this sentence is really telling the reader. The authors should be far more specific and point out that there has been a proliferation of wireless telecommunications technologies that has led to both increased potential for exposure to RF-EMF (and the frequencies we are considering here should be listed) and an increased concern over potential for impact on human health? These statements should be referenced properly, with citations taken from reliable peer-reviewed sources. Another sentence: “With the advent of new technologies in everyday life, people are continuously surrounded by lower levels of RF radiation that are unable to cause thermal effects.” This cannot be presented without a citation. What is the source of this information. To which populations is this relevant? Are people really exposed to less RF, even if they are using more and more devices? There are some good exposure studies on this, and they should be cited properly in support of such sweeping statements. And again: “So far, countless studies have been conducted, but no study has provided a satisfactory methodology.” Countless studies?! Really? And no study has provided a satisfactory methodology intended to achieve what exactly??

Section 2.1

The ICNIRP guidelines officially are designed to protect humans exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF) in the range 100 kHz to 300 GHz, and they do this through identifying minimal exposure levels required to produce harm. From this they apply reduction factors that result in exposure restrictions which incorporate large margins of safety (depending on whether for public or workers). This is not the summary presented by the authors, who state that “In terms of limitations, the guidelines indicate permitted RF levels that should not be exceeded to ensure health protection”. The authors recommended to carefully review their writing about the guidelines to reflect what they are actually designed to do.

In general, it is unclear to the reader why they are reading about these differences between the various ICNIRP guidelines. The authors need to explain more clearly why this information is presented i.e. what purpose does it serve?

Section 2.2

“Hazards” in the subtitle is the wrong term. I believe that the authors intended to write “health effects from non-thermal effects”. The RF-EMF is the hazard in this case.

“Millimeter wave and THz applications do not significantly affect the average exposure of the humans”. Exposure to what? Why are we learning about exposure here? I thought this section was about effects.

“it must be noted that a paradigm shift is slowly taking place, from apriori non-acceptance to a new understanding and acceptance of scientific explanations and results of clinical studies.. Obviously, another decade should pass so that conclusions can be drawn more reliably about the potential health hazards of high-frequency EMFs” This does read like a scientific manuscript. The authors are making all kinds of judgements here without citing any justification.

It is highly unclear reading this section what the authors wish the reader to learn. That there are non-thermal effects? The authors need to explain: what the non-thermal effects are; what health outcomes and biological changes have been putatively linked to such effects; what the uncertainties are in this field. At present the section does not do any of these things in sufficient detail, or at a sufficient level of rigour.

3. Pathway for designing methodology

“The existence of many scientific studies, which have not been taken into account (justified or unjustified) in defining guidelines, recommendations, and standards, introduces great confusion in choosing a measurement methodology.” It seems to me that this is the justification for the current work. It belongs in the introduction to set the scene for the reader, to explain why a new methodology has merit. The authors should use this statement as a starting point for defining the precise shortcomings of the current regulatory system and then to outline their specific aims addressing these issues.

“Biological effects (non-thermal effects)” Not all biological effects are non-thermal effects. This is confusing. Thermal effects are also “biological”.

What is the “pathway principle”? Is it the same as the pathway (i.e. figure 2) or is it some conceptual underpinning of the pathway? The authors should either revise their terminology or explain properly how the principle is linked to the pathway itself.

Figure 2 is declared to represent the “pathway for methodology designing”, by which I assume the authors mean “methodology design”. But this is at odds with the statements previously, where the pathway is explained as a means of choosing a methodology for assessing RF impact on health. It is also not clear again here why the authors are avoiding using the term 5G, even though that is what is in the title. Is this a pathway (and a paper) explicitly about 5G RF-EMF or RF-EMF more generally? The authors should revise either the manuscript or the title accordingly.

“The benefit of the presented pathway principle is that a new parameter or procedure can be added anywhere in it without disturbing its sequence”. The authors cannot express value judgements about benefits of the pathway before explaining what it is? The section is jumbled and hard to follow. I suggest they explain the intention of building the pathway, the potential end-users that might use it, and the way they would apply it. This should be presented in in context with relevant citations of the literature.

The Figure and the pathway are both wholly inadequately explained. What is a “comprehensive analysis”? Who conducts it? Why do they do it? What does it entail? What is the end goal?

How are the authors so sure that the pathway will be flexible enough to look at 6G when the details of that standard are as yet unconfirmed?

In summary, the whole of this section—which should be the meat of the paper—is inadequate. The reader is left without any idea of what the pathway is, what it represents, who should use it and in what circumstances, or how its use will improve decision making regarding method design.

4. Internet of things (IoT) and 5G Network - Knowledge and Doubt

The introductory paragraph suggests that the authors do not know what the IoT is. What does booking hotels have to do with IoT? This whole paragraph requires rewriting based on published material.

Again there is background information in this section about why 5G has been developed, what some people hope it will achieve and enable. This should all be in the introduction, not in the middle of the paper. It makes no sense here and feels like an afterthought.

Figure 3 doesn’t seem to have any attribution and it should have. Figures 4, 5and 6 are almost wholly out of place here – they don’t seem to relate to the text in a useful way and the authors would be recommended to either remove them or provide context for them in the written text.

“The newest 6G telecommunication mobile system should be a cellular data network overcoming all shortcomings of 5G and 4G mobile networks and supporting future AI devices and architectures.” I see no reason to include such a vague statement. If the authors wish to discuss 6G, then they should cite relevant studies appropriately (I don’t know of anything reliable in existence). A discussion of the “shortcomings” of 4G, 5G or any other G has no place in this paper.

5. Fuzzy algorithm for 5G impact assessing

This is again the meat of the paper, and yet it is presented almost last, after a jumbled and confusing set of four introductory sections.

Section 5.1 opens with some rather textbook-like introduction to fuzzy logic. This should be in the introduction, not in the methods. Some of the information is extraneous. The reader wants to know about how fuzzy logic is applied to the task in hand, not in general terms. It is not a textbook, after all. This section could be split between the introduction and being deleted.

Section 5.2 explains some of the application of the fuzzy method to EMF, but only in vague and completely uninterpretable terms. This needs a complete rewrite. What is the aim of the fuzzy logic application? How is it applied? Detail that is required is wholly lacking. The lack of inclusion of exposure time for >30GHz “because there are no guidelines for adverse biological (non-thermal effects)” makes me question the value of the fuzzy approach. I was expecting that it was precisely to deal with uncertainties like that the fuzzy logic approach would be useful! The results that are presented e.g. in Figures 9 and 10 look interesting, but they are completed unexplained either in terms of method or interpretation. The authors are requested to add a proper Methods and Results section that explain what was done and what was found.

5. Conclusions

The authors suggest that ICNIRP have not covered adverse health effects beyond thermal effects. But if this is the main gap that this paper was supposed to address, it does not seem to do so (at least to the reader of this draft of the manuscript). The authors are politely requested to rethink the structure, motivation and meaning of the work done and to present it in a way that is interpretable by readers interested in risk assessment relating to 5G and RF-EMF. Currently, I cannot recommend that this paper is published, but requires several very major revisions.

See my detailed comments in the previous Comments. In general the manuscript requires proof-reading (there are many omissions etc. that make it hard to understand), editing (to correct structural issues in the flow of the text), and English language editing to improve interpretability (particular issues relating to articles 'a' and 'the').

Author Response

Respected reviewers

 Firstly, I would like to thank you for your reviews, which have helped us significantly improve and expand our manuscript.

Secondly, I would like to inform you that one author had already dropped out of the research due to his privacy and family obligations.

Now there are three authors in the paper in the following order: Slađana Pantelić, Branisklav Vulević, and Saša Milić.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Branislav Vulević

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper can be accepted in present form

Author Response

The authors are deeply grateful to all reviewers. The first three reviewers expressed their satisfaction with the presented improvements and they have consented to publish the revised paper. To respect their opinions and conclusions, we did not change the paper fundamentally. However, we added a few new paragraphs attempting to respond to reviewer #4. We hope we have succeeded in doing so.

Sincerely,

on behalf of all authors,

Branislav Vulević

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

 I thank the authors for their response and the new version of the manuscript. While I can see that they have attempted to address a few of my concerns, very many of them remain. The Introduction and Overview sections are still very confused. They simply do not tell an introductory "story" - the lack of a compelling or flowing narrative here makes it very hard to understand why their research is relevant, the gaps that they have identified in current knowledge, and how they aim to address specific problems in the field. The reader is left feeling like they are reading a jumbled set of thoughts without sufficient coherence. I would highly recommend that the authors step back and read through what they have written as though they were not experts in fuzzy logic/EMF, and identify where they can add clarity and coherence to these sections. Then they should rethink how they present the work. It should follow this broad template: what is the issue? How does science currently address the issue? How does this affect people/policy? What are the aims of this research. There is no need to spell out what is going to come in subsequent sections (e.g. “In the first part of this paper, the authors state…”). This is completely unnecessary and I recommend this kind of content be removed. Instead, (and I realise I am being repetitive) they should spell clearly what the issues are, how they are currently addressed (or not addressed, or wrongly addressed), and then explain the aims of their work. And the aims should be presented in a scientific way i.e. as hypotheses (if appropriate) or as clearly defined goals relating to meeting specific needs. And these are goals of the research, not of the algorithm (as I noted in my previous review).

The Overview of open questions etc. should simply be included in the Introduction. It also requires rewriting as a “story”. I can see that there should be sections on why concerns about RF EMF have increased in recent years, what measurable biological effects there are, what epidemiological information there is, and how the WHO arrived at its 2B carcinogen grouping. There should then follow a section that explains how regulation is done. The first two sentences of “2.1. A brief overview of ICNIRP (2020) versus ICNIRP (1998 and 2010)” do not make sense. I believe that the authors are attempting to convey how regulation is done, but they are not explaining it with sufficient clarity. And again, the authors must remove statements like “in this part of the paper…”. They are completely unwarranted. Instead, the reader should be signposted with a good narrative structure.

There are various grammatical problems in the paper still e.g. “The intense body's exposure to RF above 30 GHz can significantly increase the temperature of the local tissue.” This sentence is not correctly formulated. What I think the authors wish to write is “Intense exposure of the human body to RF above 30 GHz can result in significant, localised temperature increases in tissue”. This is just one example of very many. Again, I believe that the authors needs to sit back and read through their work more carefully, and then get the manuscript proofread.

Section 3 begins with: “Many scientific studies, which have not been taken into account (justified or unjustified) in defining guidelines, recommendations, and standards, introduce great confusion in choosing a measurement methodology.” I do not know what this means. Chiefly, what is strange is that the authors now express the need to produce a “measurement methodology”. This is written as though it should be clear to the reader what is meant. I think that this is the crux of the paper, or not? Are the authors attempting to present a means of measuring something (I’m not sure what form the current manuscript)? If so, this must be described properly in the aims (within the Introduction).

The section on fuzzy logic appears to repeat what is available in textbooks on the subject. While such content might be appropriate in a thesis or a book, it is not appropraite in a scientific article. The information is presented without any clear idea given to the reader what purpose such information serves. The section appears in place of what should be "methods" of the authors' own research (unless I'm very much mistaken), so the reader has no idea of what was actually done, how it was done, or why. There is some hint to actual results being produced in the Results and DIscussion section, but it is extremely unclear how they were produced or what they mean.

I feel as though my detailed comments have not been sufficiently taken into account in this new version of the manuscript. I have read most of the new version and find so much confusion throughout (which I pointed out in my previous report and has not been addressed properly by the authors in this version of the manuscript) that I will refer them back to the comments I made in Report 1. I don't think it is a productive use of my time to provide such detailed comments twice.

I think that there is probably something interesting in this research, but the current manuscript (just as the one before) makes it extremely difficult to understand what has been done, for what reasons, and what the results are. I highly recommend that the authors go through my previous report and their own manuscript and think through very carefully what exactly the paper is about, and rewrite accordingly.

The English is problematic in places still. While I would recommend using an English language editor to improve the manuscript, I suspect that such an editor may struggle to understand the sense of some sentences as they are currently written. This is perhaps less of an English language issue, and relates more to logic and narrative/structure.

Author Response

Reviewer #4

1. Introduction

The issue of electromagnetic radiation and health has implications for people and politics. The concerns about potential health risks associated with 4G and 5G networks have led to public debates and discussions. Some individuals express concerns and take measures, such as exposure limiting or using protective gear. On the other hand, others are more confident in the safety of mobile networks based on the available scientific evidence and regulatory guidelines.

Public policy and regulations also play a role in addressing this issue. A few international organizations and regulatory bodies set standards and guidelines for radiation exposure to protect public health. These guidelines are often based on scientific research. However, the specific regulations can vary between countries and regions, leading to differences in permissible exposure limits.

3. Pathway for designing methodology

There are differing opinions among experts and consistent recommendations and guidelines in many scientific and research areas. Because of that, a well-defined methodology can help in the proper selection of procedures and the development of a decision-making algorithm.

4. Internet of Things (IoT) and 5G Network - Knowledge and Doubt

The merge of IoT and 5G is seen as a powerful synergy that can unlock new possibilities and revolutionize various industries. It is important to understand the potential benefits of both technologies. Continuous research and security and protection measures are necessary to exploit these technologies addressing any concerns that may arise.

7. Conclusions and Future Work

The proposed algorithm should enable a straightforward assessment of the impact of electromagnetic radiation in field conditions where there is an unknown number of radiation sources.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf