Precision Agriculture: Assessment of Ergonomic Risks of Assisted Driving System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study focuses on the field of precision agriculture, particularly the ergonomic risks that operators, especially tractor drivers, may face during use, and how these risks can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). It investigates how the position of the display screen in a semi-automatic tractor system affects the operator's comfort and muscle activation during tillage operations. However, there are some problems in this paper that suggest improvement：

1. It is recommended that additional legends be added to Figures 5 and 6 to illustrate what the different colors and shapes mean

2. Less related work is presented and it is suggested to add some previous related studies in this field

3. the small sample size (10 operators) may limit the generalizability and statistical power of the findings. It is recommended to increase the sample size for better generalization of the findings. The representativeness of the sample selection is also an issue. Did the study cover operators of different ages, genders, body sizes and experience levels? If not, this may affect the interpretation of the results.

4. The concluding section, while summarizing the main findings, lacks practical recommendations for actual operators and for the design of agricultural machinery. It is recommended that specific suggestions for improvement be provided, such as optimal placement of the display screen, improvements in cockpit design, etc.

5. The discussion section, while mentioning comparisons with existing literature, lacks an in-depth analysis of the possible physiological and biomechanical mechanisms behind the results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your time. Below are the answers to your suggestions.

The study focuses on the field of precision agriculture, particularly the ergonomic risks that operators, especially tractor drivers, may face during use, and how these risks can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). It investigates how the position of the display screen in a semi-automatic tractor system affects the operator's comfort and muscle activation during tillage operations. However, there are some problems in this paper that suggest improvement：

1. It is recommended that additional legends be added to Figures 5 and 6 to illustrate what the different colors and shapes mean.
   -As you suggested, I have described figures 5 and 6 better.
2. Less related work is presented and it is suggested to add some previous related studies in this field
   -Yes i did it.
3. the small sample size (10 operators) may limit the generalizability and statistical power of the findings. It is recommended to increase the sample size for better generalization of the findings. The representativeness of the sample selection is also an issue. Did the study cover operators of different ages, genders, body sizes and experience levels? If not, this may affect the interpretation of the results.
   -The sample is homogeneous, this supports the statistical analysis. However, given the type of measurement carried out, the data is significant. We have already published papers with the same sample size in the past. Furthermore, this is a first work from which another will certainly derive with a larger sample size.
4. The concluding section, while summarizing the main findings, lacks practical recommendations for actual operators and for the design of agricultural machinery. It is recommended that specific suggestions for improvement be provided, such as optimal placement of the display screen, improvements in cockpit design, etc.
   -As you suggested, I added a sentence reporting this concept.
5. The discussion section, while mentioning comparisons with existing literature, lacks an in-depth analysis of the possible physiological and biomechanical mechanisms behind the results.
   -I have already reported on line 301 notes on metabolism. However, I improved this part in the discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Methods - Each experiment lasted 15 minutes. In those 15 minutes, how many times did the participants look at the display screen. Was it a certain frequency or did they look at it the whole time. This is unclear and can have a significant impact on how representative the experiment was and what the results mean.

The value of the infrared thermography is unclear. The way I understand the experiment, the participant temperature values were measured in the room, he then went and did work outside with the display at various positions. He comes back and is immediately measured again. The authors do not report what T1 is, what is the variation in T1. Also given that the participants went outside to conduct work, there is an additional variable of the outside temperature that might impact the results. There is temperature variability across the same day (day gets hotter as it progresses) and variability between days. The authors failed to mention if this was a one day experiment or multi day experiment. Also since it is unclear whether the experimental block was randomized, what if the increase in temperature and significance for later points (at 50 and 80 degrees) occur due to rising temperature throughout the day. Lastly could the sEMG device have an impact on the thermo measurements (since there where only 30 observations, one would assume it was on the participant during the experimental run).

Results were well written and the graph were of high quality. Some minor edits.

Minor edits for Table 1. High should be height ; Playing sports should be played sports

Minor edits for Table 3. Replace the comma (,) with periods (.) to be consistent with notation with the rest of the paper.

LINE 252 observer should be observed. (also occurs in other areas)

Highlighted some minor edits.

Observer should be in most cases observed

playing to played

High to height

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your time and suggestions. As for the comments:

Methods - Each experiment lasted 15 minutes. In those 15 minutes, how many times did the participants look at the display screen. Was it a certain frequency or did they look at it the whole time. This is unclear and can have a significant impact on how representative the experiment was and what the results mean.
-Dear reviewer, it is not possible to calculate the number of times the participants look at the display screen during the test. The only certain fact is that during steering maneuvers the operator must look at the display to reposition himself in the correct path. For greater clarity I added the sentence "The steering to change direction occurred approximately every 500 m of road with the tractor.". Therefore, knowing the average speed and time it is possible to calculate the steering number which is 4.

The value of the infrared thermography is unclear. The way I understand the experiment, the participant temperature values were measured in the room, he then went and did work outside with the display at various positions. He comes back and is immediately measured again. The authors do not report what T1 is, what is the variation in T1. Also given that the participants went outside to conduct work, there is an additional variable of the outside temperature that might impact the results. There is temperature variability across the same day (day gets hotter as it progresses) and variability between days. The authors failed to mention if this was a one day experiment or multi day experiment. Also since it is unclear whether the experimental block was randomized, what if the increase in temperature and significance for later points (at 50 and 80 degrees) occur due to rising temperature throughout the day. Lastly could the sEMG device have an impact on the thermo measurements (since there where only 30 observations, one would assume it was on the participant during the experimental run).

-Regarding this point, the tractor was equipped with a cab and the internal temperature was set at 23°C. Therefore the impact of the temperature outside the tractor was negligible. I insert this data into the paper "The temperature inside the tractor cab was adjusted to 23°C throughout the test.". Furthermore, in accordance with the TISEM consensus, at the end of the test the subject was placed in the room to acclimatise. In particular, at the end of the test (T1) the subject quickly returned to the room and rested there for approximately 15 minutes. This was made clearer on line 210.

Results were well written and the graph were of high quality. Some minor edits.

Minor edits for Table 1. High should be height ; Playing sports should be played sports
-As you suggested, I corrected this terms.

Minor edits for Table 3. Replace the comma (,) with periods (.) to be consistent with notation with the rest of the paper.
-Thanks, I did it.

LINE 252 observer should be observed. (also occurs in other areas)
-Thanks, I did it.

Reviewer 3 Report

Before the reviewer comments, The authors should provide clarity on the plagiarism report. The Similarity Index is 44% and most of the content are same/similar to the already published paper (see below). 

"Romano, E., Bisaglia, C., Calcante, A., Oberti, R., Zani, A., Vinnikov, D., Marconi, A., Vitale, E., Bracci, M. and Rapisarda, V., 2020. Assessment of comfort variation among different types of driving agricultural tractors: Traditional, satellite-assisted and semi-automatic. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(23), p.8836."

None

Author Response

Dear reviewer thank you for your time.

The similarities with the previous paper exist as this paper is an evolution of the previous study. However, as you requested, I tried to reduce the similarities.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing these revisions, I have no other requests

Author Response

Thank you for your time!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments: 

#Revise the title with good sentence formation 

#Why is only 30/50/80 degree considered in the study? 

# Are 10 operators good enough for the generalization of findings? 

# What steps  were involved in finding the appropriate muscles for sEMG measurement to this specific task? 

# Since the data collection is very critical in this study, the statistical analysis section should elaborate well. Currently, the information is not good enough for a scientific paper. 

#Figre 5 and 6 is not clear!!! The interpretation of these figures was not written well. It should be elaborated.

#Conculsion section should shrink with 10 lines 

Overall, the paper is good enough for publication after minor correction of above mentioned comments 

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your time and suggestions which were greatly appreciated.

#Revise the title with good sentence formation 
-As you suggested, I did it: "Precision agriculture: assessment of ergonomic risks deriving from the use of assisted driving system"

#Why is only 30/50/80 degree considered in the study? 
-The positioning of the display was conducted at 30, 50 and 80 degrees in relation to the presence of supports in which to install the display. In particular, the cabin upright is located at 50°, while the lateral support is at 80°. Generally in cabins these elements are found in the same angles. 30 degrees, on the other hand, is the angle at which the display is commonly placed in tractors.

# Are 10 operators good enough for the generalization of findings? 
-As I also replied to the previous reviewer for the same question: "The sample is homogeneous, this supports the statistical analysis. However, given the type of measurement carried out, the data is significant. We have already published papers with the same sample size in the past. Furthermore, this is a first work from which another will certainly derive with a larger sample size."

# What steps  were involved in finding the appropriate muscles for sEMG measurement to this specific task?
-As is known, vhole body vibration is a significant physical risk factor associated with low back. The positioning of the EMGs aimed to identify muscle parts solicited both by the vibratory activity such as the latissimus dorsi muscle, and by the rotation activity of the steering, therefore right and left shoulders, the positioning of the latter was based on previous studies which interested an area between the deltoid and infraspinatus muscles. (https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238836; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.05.010)

# Since the data collection is very critical in this study, the statistical analysis section should elaborate well. Currently, the information is not good enough for a scientific paper. 
-Dear reviewer, many articles published previously with the same sample size and same statistical methods have found space in the literature. The statistical tests used appear appropriate to the needs of the study.

#Figre 5 and 6 is not clear!!! The interpretation of these figures was not written well. It should be elaborated.
-As you suggested, I have described figures 5 and 6 better.

#Conculsion section should shrink with 10 lines 
-As you suggested, I have considerably reduced the length of the conclusions.

-As you requested, I had revised the English language.

Overall, the paper is good enough for publication after minor correction of above mentioned comments .